Judge denies petition; rules in favor for City of Guthrie

A judge has ruled in the favor for the City of Guthrie in a case that was filed five years ago. The initiative petition was brought on in hopes the city would no longer be allowed to raise water and sewer rates, but instead be submitted to legal voters.

The petition was denied by the city and shortly later was later filed in court on Sept. 7, 2008 by Karen Shandorf and former city councilwoman Patty Hazlewood.

The case was heard by District Judge Phillip Corley in a non-jury trial. The judgment was announced Thursday morning.

The court found if the initiative petition was in place it would create an undue burden on the City and Guthrie Public Works Authority that it would destroy the city’s ability to engage in the business of a utility.

The petition proposed the city should not be allowed to raise water and sewer rates, but instead be submitted to the legal voters of the city for their approval or rejection at the next regular general election, or at a special election.

The only city in the state that allows a vote for rate increases is Norman, but their finance director, Anthony Fransico, testified he believes it is a “bad business practice.” He went on to say that Norman has been delayed since 2001 on sewer projects and Norman voters have failed to pass two water and one sewer rate increase, but did vote for two water rate increases.

Throughout the litigation, the court put a hold on any rate increases.

Hazlewood had become displeased with the city’s implemented CMOM fee, along with a fee to pay for the new $15 million water treatment plant and the handling of the loan with Excel Jet for $375,000.

Inside the courtroom, City Manager, Sereniah Breland, along with council members Trey Ayers, Mary Coffin and Gaylord Z. Thomas, took the stand and said the proposed petition could potentially be dangerous for the city and citizens.

Thomas stated, it would be a “severe train wreck” if a rate increase was voted against when the city saw increased fees themselves.

Ayers said, “it could cripple our community” while Breland testified, “it could destroy the city.”