Opinion ID: 2448564
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The paying ... at the same rate and in the same manner element

Text: Reversal is also required on account of the State's failure to produce substantial evidence that Mr. Allen paid for municipal services in a manner contrary to the general public's manner of paying for them. Under § 14-42-108(a)(1), the State was obligated to show that Mr. Allen failed to pay for received or accepted services at the same rate and in the same manner as the general public pays for such services. According to the majority, the testimony of Sherry Taylor and Robert Stephens was sufficient to prove that Mr. Allen used his office to obtain preferential treatment not available to the general public. They testified that, in their opinion, any customer who resided within the city limits of Gould and was connected to the sewer system was required to pay the minimum sewer fee. The testimony cited by the majority suggests that Mr. Allen was the only person in the City who received water service and was connected to the sewer system who did not pay a minimum sewer fee. To the contrary, the testimony of Ms. Taylor and Mr. Stephens is not substantial evidence that Mr. Allen's manner of paying for municipal services and the rate at which he paid for services were contrary to those of the general public. Each witness, through his or her work in city government, was familiar with the billing procedures of the water department, and each testified that members of the general public who reside within the city limits and are connected to the sewer system typically pay a minimum sewer fee. But neither Ms. Taylor nor Mr. Stephens testified that it is unusual for members of the general public who do not receive or accept a particular service to be excused from paying the minimum fee for that service. Moreover, Ms. Taylor conceded on cross-examination that [a] lot of people within the city limits paid only the minimum water charge and were excused from paying the other minimum charges. In light of Ms. Taylor's testimony, Mr. Allen's manner of payment appears consistent with that of the general public. More important, a Gould ordinance establishes that the manner in which Mr. Allen paid for municipal services was perfectly consistent with the manner in which the general public was allowed to make payments. The ordinance provided for the assessment of sewer fees on all users who contribute wastewater to the City of Gould treatment works. By the terms of the ordinance, no sewer fee was required of a customer unless (1) he was a user of the sewer service; and (2) he contributed wastewater to the City's sewer system. Under the law of the City of Gould, then, it was entirely permissible for a person who did not use, or contribute wastewater to, the sewer system to avoid paying a sewer fee. The State did not show that Mr. Allen qualified as a user of the sewer system or a contributor of wastewater. The ordinance establishes that Mr. Allen's manner of payment comported with the manner of payment for municipal services prescribed by the general public of Gould. As the ordinance was applicable to all citizens of Gould, the majority is wrong to say that Mr. Allen's manner of payment constituted preferential treatment not available to the general public. Clearly, any Gould citizen who did not use, or contribute wastewater to, the city sewer system could avoid payment of any sewer fee by operation of this ordinance.