Most Who Sued Over Water Fees Hold Back on Bills

Most of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit that successfully challenged Leesburg's water and sewer rates have refused to pay the full amount of their most recent bills, citing a judge's ruling that the rates are unreasonably high.

But town officials said that the fees will remain in effect until Sept. 1 and that the customers could have their service cut off.

At issue is the 100 percent surcharge that Leesburg imposes on out-of-town customers. Loudoun County Circuit Court Judge Thomas D. Horne, following the trial of a lawsuit filed in 2006, ruled in March that the surcharge was unreasonably high and unlawful under the state code.

Horne ruled that to be considered reasonable, the water rate surcharge would need to be reduced by 45 to 51 percent and the sewer rate surcharge reduced by 36.53 percent. He later agreed to give the town until Sept. 1 to enact new fees so that town officials could complete a rate study.

Last week, when quarterly bills were due, eight of the 10 plaintiffs in the suit paid only the amount that Horne had said was reasonable, according to plaintiffs' spokesman Stewart Curley. The 10 plaintiffs include the River Creek, Lakes at Red Rock and Spring Lakes homeowners associations, which pay the town for water used in common areas of those developments, and seven homeowners.

"We felt it was incumbent on us to protest the illegal charges in every way we reasonably can," Curley said.

Curley also cited comments made by Town Attorney Jeanette Irby at a post-trial court hearing, in which she said that the town was willing to accept partial payments on the water and sewer bills. He said the plaintiffs then sent the partial payments to Irby's office, which refused to accept them.

"We were following through on that, but ultimately they changed their mind and rejected them," he said.

The plaintiffs then sent the payments to the town utility department, Curley said, only to be told that they would soon be assessed a 10 percent late fee for failing to pay the full amount and might eventually have their service shut off if they did not pay in full.

Irby said the comments she made during the court hearing were misconstrued. She said she mentioned the idea of partial payments when she was asking the judge to give the town until Dec. 1 to revise its rates.

"It was said in the context of an argument," she said. "If we got more time to do the rate study, then we wouldn't turn their water off if they made partial payments."

At this point, the rates that were the subject of the lawsuit remain in effect, Irby said.

Curley said he did not know how long the plaintiffs would continue refusing to make full payment. He said it was possible that they would pay the full amount if faced with the imminent threat of losing their water and sewer service.

"If we ultimately make payment, it [will be] shown that it has been made under duress," Curley said.