Gasconade County Republican, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 08:30 Dave Marner
Minutes from the Supreme Court’s session on Tuesday, released at 1 p.m. Sept. 21, noted the appellants’ Aug. 3 “application for transfer from the Court of Appeals, No. ED92933, (is) sustained and cause ordered transferred,” according to the court’s web site.
Jeffrey T. McPherson, an attorney for the firm Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, in St. Louis, which represents Arbor Investment Company, LLC., CFV Plastics, LLC, and citizens Buzz Manley and Donna Austin as the plaintiffs/appellants, said Tuesday afternoon he had not received a written order from the court but confirmed he saw the notice on the court’s web site. “That’s what I heard,” said McPherson. “That’s what the notation on the (court’s) web site says. I believe its been granted.”
He said the application for transfer to the state’s Supreme Court was filed “in the general interest for the people of the state.”
The application for transfer notes the cities of Salem and Marceline, like Hermann, “have padded their general revenue by unconstitutionally increasing utility charges without a vote of the people” and cites state audit reports of those Missouri communities as a footnote. Hermann’s audit, according to the Appellate Court’s ruling of June 22, shows the gross receipts fees paid from electric, water, sewer, and natural gas utilities to the general revenue fund accounts for 35 percent of total general revenue.”
What remained unclear to the Appellate Court, however, was if this was done by design to raise general revenue funds or simply the way it worked out. The court was unable to determine if that issue favored the city or the appellants/plaintiffs.
The Court of Appeals found two factors in the city’s favor and three others which involved “genuine disputes of material fact.” It ruled the trial court “erred in entering summary judgement in favor of the city” since there were disputed facts concerning utility rates as they pertained to the Hancock Amendment approved by voters in November 1980.
“We’re asking the judgement of the Circuit Court be reversed,” said McPherson, “It’s an issue of general interest (statewide) that the court should rule on.”
In the Appellate Court’s ruling, Presiding Judge Robert G. Dowd, Jr., wrote for the 3-judge panel: “If it is shown on remand that the object of the fees is to fund the city’s general revenue, then this constitutes a violation of the Hancock Amendment and deserves an appropriate remedy under the Hancock Amendment.”
“That’s what was asked of the Supreme Court,” said McPherson. “To rule on the Hancock Amendment as it’s applied to all these political subdivisions.”
McPherson said they seek the Supreme Court’s ruling to “uphold the Appellant’s reversal and enter a judgement for the plaintiffs.” The Whole Story....
