The MoPEP Machine: Dec 12, 2010

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Is skimming inflated utility rates a "hidden tax" and a Hancock violation? Supreme Ct. hears Arbor v. Hermann Wednesday, Dec. 15, '10

The Missouri Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Arbor v. Hermann on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. challenging the decades-old corrupt practice enjoyed by many unregulated municipal utilities of inflating utility rates so they can “skim” off what the plaintiffs contend are “grossly excessive amounts” of utility revenue to use for other city purposes. The “other purposes” are most commonly budget shortages from bad management and “special” projects for “special” people, also known as “pork.” For years Missouri State Auditor's in city petition audits have bluntly called this practice a "hidden tax" and a violation of the Hancock Amendment.

The Missouri Attorney General and the Missouri State Auditor have filed amicus briefs on behalf of the plaintiffs (the citizens suing), Arbor Investment Company, et. al. The Missouri Municipal League and MPUA (MJMEUC-MoPEP) have filed amicus briefs supporting the City of Hermann’s defense case defending their right to lie to the public and charge them for utility services when they know the ‘profits’ from overcharging will be used for other non-utility purposes.

The docket page link will take you to the SC page where you can open all the briefs to be presented by the plaintiffs, the city of Hermann, and the other entities filing amicus curiae briefs in support of one side or the other. Below is the court’s summary of all the briefs.

Must reading: The brief by the Armstrong Teasdale firm on behalf of Arbor Investment et. al. which is very lucid and describes the issues well. The defense brief by the City of Hermann sounds sweaty and desperate. For laughs read the feeble amicus brief filed by MPUA - the mother ship of MJMEUC-MoPEP. Their argument is that the “utility customers consent to the city providing them utilities and are free to discontinue their use of the city’s services.” Oh sure they can, but only if they want to live without heat and light, and without bathing, cooking, flushing and all the other MONOPOLY city services. Well, MPUA couldn’t just come right out and say, “Leave them alone because if you let the public start voting on raising their utility rates, the MoPEP Machine won’t be able to suck them dry by making them pay all MJMEUC's debts 'without limitation.' ”

DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

9:30 a.m. Wednesday, Dec. 15, 2010

________________________________________

SC91109
Arbor Investment Company, LLC, et al. v. City of Hermann
Gasconade County
Hancock Amendment challenge to city utility charges

In December 2006, a group of Hermann utility customers brought a class action lawsuit against the city of Hermann, alleging the city charged utility customers “grossly excessive amounts” for utilities, thereby violating the Hancock Amendment of the state constitution by subsidizing city operations through a “hidden tax.” The city is the sole provider of utilities for its taxpayers. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The utility customers appeal.

The utility customers argue the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in the city’s favor. They contend that the undisputed facts show – or, alternatively, that there is a disputed material fact whether – the city increased utility fees and violated article x, section 22 of the Missouri Constitution (part of the Hancock Amendment) by setting utility charges at a level to increase the city’s general revenue and subsidize general governmental expenditures. The customers assert this is tantamount to raising taxes without a vote of the people.

The city responds that the trial court did not err in entering summary judgment in its favor. It argues the facts are undisputed and show the city’s utility charges are not subject to the Hancock Amendment because: the utility charges are not a tax; the trial court properly applied the correct legal test in determining the charges are not a tax; the test produces “consistent results;” and municipally owned utilities are not required to be operated at “cost.”

The attorney general and state auditor argue, as friends of the Court, that when a municipal utility that is the sole provider of essential services sets rates to fund non-utility expenses, it adds “user fees” taxes that are subject to the Hancock Amendment. They contend that although the Hancock Amendment does not bar a municipal utility from continuing to collect fees for general revenue as a portion of its existing rate, it requires a public vote if the utility seeks to increase the portion of the rate that is not being collected to pay the costs of the service.

The Missouri Municipal League argues, as a friend of the Court, that the trial court properly held the city’s utility charges were not subject to the Hancock Amendment. It contends applying the Hancock Amendment to any contractual service generating revenue is unsupported by law and violates public policy, thereby depriving the public of fair compensation for use of public property and services. It asserts the attorney general and state auditor’s arguments improperly distinguish sole providers of utilities.

The Missouri Public Utility Alliance, the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission and the Municipal Gas Commission of Missouri argue, as friends of the Court, that the city’s transfer of utility funds to general revenue funds is not a tax or a fee. They contend the utility customers consent to the city providing them utilities and are free to discontinue their use of the city’s services. Finally, they assert the attorney general and state auditor’s arguments fail to consider that utility revenues may increase or decrease based on external economic factors.

Glossary

"Joint Municipal Utility Commission Act." RSMo Chapter 393.700 – 393.770. The laws that turned MJMEUC/MoPEP contracts loose on the unsuspecting public in 2002. They were subsequently amended until in 2007 they - and the MoPEP contract they spawned - became truly lethal. Thanks to our state legislators for paying no attention to what they were voting on and what it was really doing to our ‘naked’ small towns and their monopoly detainees that are denied PSC protection.
MJMEUC debts: MJMEUC debts and MoPEP debts are the same because MJMEUC and MoPEP are the same. Of the 60 MJMEUC members only 35 have also signed the MoPEP contract - the rest must have read it first. The remaining 25 MJMEUC members that were smart enough to NOT sign the MoPEP power contract probably think they aren’t part of the mega billion investment mess and that their cities are not liable for the MJMEUC debt. Are they ever going to be surprised!
MoPEP contract: (the “Amended and Restated Missouri Public Energy Pool #1 Agreement Among Missouri Joint Municipal Utility Commission and Pool Members”) One of the worst Trojan contracts of the 21st century. It is not, as represented by MJMEUC officials, a routine industry-standard commodity contract to provide allegedly cheaper or “stable” power due to MoPEP’s alleged “economies of scale,” it is actually a device to feudalize small towns and turn them into a “collateral farm” so MJMEUC can, without the knowledge or consent of these electrical serfs, pledge their collective electric revenues to leverage MJMEUC’s first $10 million bank loan into $2-plus Billion in revenue bond debt. The $2-plus Billion in revenue bonds was used to purchase equity ownership in five power plants being built in the Midwest. Equity investments are illegal for all Missouri political entities.
MoPEP No 1 captives: Albany * Ava * Bethany * Butler * (Campbell escaped!) Carrollton * Chillicothe * El Dorado * Springs * Farmington * Fayette * Fredericktown * Gallatin * Harrisonville * Hermann * Higginsville * Jackson * Lamar * LaPlata * Lebanon * Macon * Marshall * Memphis * Monroe City * Odessa * Owensville * Palmyra * Rock Port * Rolla * Salisbury * Shelbina * St. James * Stanberry * Thayer * Trenton * Unionville * Vandalia. (35 as of 10/10)
MoPEP: The Missouri Public Energy Pool #1 is merely a “project” of MJMEUC, not a separate corporate entity. MoPEP is a window-dressing committee formed ostensibly to set electric rates. The “project” has even less power than a corporate affiliate or empty shell but the “project” serves to prop up the illusion that the MoPEP member cities have control of their power rates. Utility managers, and city officials or “Pool Members” who take the pro forma votes aren’t aware of their impotence. If they had bothered to read their MoPEP contracts they would have seen that MJMEUC has all the power and all the rights in the contract and MoPEP committee members have nothing but obligations to MJMEUC. Note the chilling designation of #1, signaling that there will be clones of this unnatural thing.
state audit hell: What you’re living in if you’re a city manager or mayor and the State Auditor - in the petition audit forced upon you by angry citizens – publicly yanks your pants down for covering up your financial mismanagement by inflating utility rates and raking off hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to subsidize your misfeasance. And after all that agony…you still have to pay the audit bill.
“direct costs:” Arguably the most poisonous provision in the MoPEP contract and the key to dumping all MJMEUC’s financial obligations onto MoPEP members along with their power bills. Direct costs are defined on page 3 as: “All costs MJMEUC incurs in connection with acquiring, providing, arranging or financing the provision of Services hereunder, including without limitation all payments MJMEUC is required to make (including reserves and debt service coverages MJMEUC is required to maintain pursuant to any bond indenture, financing lease or loan agreement) under contractual and/or financial commitments and obligations entered into by MJMEUC in order to procure, deliver, or finance resources intended to provide Services, without regard to whether any particular resource is available to or used by any particular Pool Member….” The “without limitation” part on page 3 is where cities should have stopped reading and moved on to discuss relining their sewers.
“going bare:” What you feel you are doing when you live in a rural town in Missouri that has a city utility but unlike the favored Missouri citizens who live in big cities you have no Public Service Commission protection to keep you from being gouged by uncontrolled and unlimited utility rates.
“joint venture:” What State Auditor Susan Montee said in the Rolla and Marceline petition audits about the MJMEUC/MoPEP organization’s debts and liabilities may be “…pursuant to Governmental Accounting Standards Board statements, it appears the relationship between the RMU and the MJMEUC/MoPEP may be a joint venture. Additionally, joint venture participants must disclose specific information including information regarding ongoing financial interest and/or financial responsibility and information to evaluate whether the joint venture is accumulating significant financial resources or causing a financial burden on the participating government in the future.” -Montee, Rolla audit 2009
“Marceline Migraine:” What you get every time you open your electric bill if your city government is too chicken and too lazy to ask voters to raise property or sales taxes to support essential city services but instead they keep playing the “pump ‘n skim” game with electric rates. The Poster City for this is Marceline Missouri that has abused their monopoly hostages until the electric rate is 15.35¢ per kilowatt and 63% of the city budget comes from illegal utility overcharges.
“pump ‘n skim:” What your city government (utility board) does when they contract for power from a commercial wholesale source then pump up the kilowatt price far higher than needed to run the utility department so they can covertly “skim” a few hundred thousand or a few million a year to subsidize their mismanagement in other city operations or fund pork projects for their cronies.