Post in Natural Gas

Feb 22 20:50 UTC

Our city council is in large part responsible for the cash transfers.

They enacted the four percent "in lieu of franchise" fee. The 11 percent
( or this year, ten percent) administrative transfer is not a matter of
ordinance - it is simply line-itemed into the city's yearly budget and
the City Council rubber-stamps it.

Should the city council read what they approve before they approve it?
Should they have refused to sign off on a budget which is bleeding the
enterprise fund dry? I would argue that they should.

A basic fact to keep in mind. If out city council members had been
discharging their duties with a respectable degree of intelligence and
integrity, we would not be where we are now.

There are a couple of things that need to happen, pronto, with city
utilities. The absolute first thing is that we must halt shutoffs of low
income people and medically infirm people during the winter months. It
is inexcusable! We can go about that a couple of ways. One way would be
for the City Council to enact a winter shutoff moratorium ordinance. If
they are unwilling, the second way would be (and state law provides for
this) to petition for a ballot measure to place our city utilities under
PRC regulation. Then they would have no choice but to observe the state
moratorium.

The State Auditor's office is currently reviewing state law; it may very
well be that the city is bound to observe the moratorium anyway, and has
been acting outside of the law. Hector Balderas was involved with
drafting the LIHEAP legislation which contains the moratorium, and he
has expressed some skepticism as the city's being exempt.

The other thing that needs to happen is that the City Council needs to
enact an ordinance or resolution clarifying the purpose of the
enterprise fund, and that the fund is to be a self-sustaining entity
established for the purpose of providing gas, water etc to the people of
Las Vegas at affordable rates. That would effectively preclude the city
from using the enterprise fund as a cash cow.

Lee Einer

Here is the state statute allowing us to decide whether our utility is
to be PRC regulated -

62-6-5. Local option.  (1993)
Notwithstanding any of the provisions in Section 62-6-4 NMSA 1978, any
municipality desiring to avail itself of all the benefits of the Public
Utility Act [62-13-1 NMSA 1978] and of the regulatory services of the
commission may elect to come within the provisions of that act and to
have the utilities owned and operated by it, either directly or through
a municipally owned corporation, regulated and supervised under the
provisions of that act. When a municipality so elects, in the manner
provided in this section, it shall be subject to all the provisions of
the Public Utility Act. The election shall be held as follows:
A.     at any time after the effective date of the Public Utility Act,
the legal voters of any municipality may petition in writing the
governing body of the municipality by filing a petition in the office of
the municipal clerk to hold an election for the purpose of determining
whether the municipality shall be subject to the provisions of that act.
If the aggregate of the names signed to the petition equals or exceeds
twenty-five percent of the number of legal votes cast in the
municipality for governor at the last preceding general election, the
governing body of the municipality shall call an election to be held
within sixty days of the filing of the petition. Provided, however, that
if a general municipal election is to be held for any other purpose
within six months of the filing of the petition, the election provided
for in this section shall be held at the same time as and through the
election machinery used at that election;
B.     the election shall be held in the same manner as and with the
same registration books as for other municipal elections. The ballots to
be submitted to the voters at the election shall present the following
questions:
"For regulation of municipally owned utilities by the New Mexico public
utility commission ............
"Against regulation of municipally owned utilities by the New Mexico
public utility commission ............"
The votes at the election shall be counted, returned and canvassed as
provided for in general municipal elections. If the majority of all the
votes are in favor of regulation of municipally owned utilities, the
governing body of the municipality shall declare, by order entered upon
the records of the municipality, that it is subject to all the
provisions of the Public Utility Act. If the majority of all the votes
are against such regulation, the result of the election shall be
declared and entered in the same manner; and
C.     no elections for the same purpose shall be held within two years
of each other.

Milton Deemer wrote:
> My wife and I attended the Feb 21 natural gas meeting and while we were
pleased that no illegal manipulations were found, we were disappointed that
many of the basic questions regarding the shifting of monies to the general
fund and the large amount of lost natural gas were not investigated.  Both of
these issues are probably outside the jurisdiction of the state auditor, still
they have always been and remain the crux of peoples' concern about the city's
handling of this utility.  Can anyone suggest who might investigate these
problems?
>
> Milton Deemer
>
> Info about Milton Deemer: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/miltondeemer
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6q0f0xZPvpNNWQgk7Gjbei