"RETURN TO SENDER" elvis presley

First things first, the Cemeteries

On Monday's council agenda;

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER  TO SEEK BIDS AND PROPOSALS FOR THE SALE  OF EVERGREEN  CEMETERY AND RIVERSIDE CEMETERY

Now to the letter;

March 20,2013

Honorable Mike DeWine, Attorney General
STATE OF OHIO
30 E. Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215

Dear Attorney General DeWine:

We write to urge you to investigate any potential fraud or misrepresentations that led to municipalities across Ohio and seven other states entering into long-term contracts to invest in electric generation at the new Prairie State Energy Campus (PSEC) in Marissa, Illinois. The plant was originally developed by Peabody Energy in the mid-2000s, but Peabody then sold 95% of the ownership interest in the plant to joint public power agencies in eight states, including Ohio. Along with the PSEC power plant, Peabody sold the new owners an adjacent coal mine and ashfield.

Peabody disclosed on February 25, 2013 that it had received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for issues regarding the development of the plant.
While the scope of the SEC's investigation is unclear, we believe that Peabody's role in the substantial construction cost overruns and operational problems at the plant has rightfully attracted the attention of federal regulators.

On March 15, 2013, we learned that American Municipal Power (AMP) had also been subpoenaed in regard to this project. According to a memo received during a public records request to the city of Cleveland, AMP decided to inform its members of the subpoena only after Ohio Citizens Action, a public interest organization, circulated news articles to AMP members informing them of the Peabody subpoena.

Peabody Energy sold public power entities on the Prairie State project with promises of low cost, affordable, reliable electricity in return for their investment in the power plant. Instead - as media reports, local government complaints, and a recent study document, the plant is not providing electricity at either its promised price or at prices that are near the current market price of power. States and communities collectively have taken on $11.7 billion in debt payments, and unlimited liability for the plant, mine, and ashfield. Construction cost overruns, operational problems, questions about the mine and ashfield sold to Prairie State by Peabody, and a general lack of transparency have left local governments with a fiscal burden, not an asset.

All of the 217 municipalities and 17 rural electric coops that have entered into PSEC contracts are exposed to the financial risks of the plant, but the 82 communities that signed (take-or-pay) contracts with American Municipal Power, Kentucky Municipal Power Agency, Northern Illinois Municipal Power Agency, and the Missouri Joint Municipal Power Agency, are particularly at risk because they must pay for the plant whether or not it produces power. In all, 2.5 million families across the Midwest are subject to risk of this expensive electricity.

Sixty Ohio municipalities and eight additional AMP members outside Ohio signed (take-or-pay) contracts with AMP for this plant. When these contracts were marketed to the communities, we were promised (economic and reliable) power. We would be happy to provide your office with copies of the original documents that our municipalities received from AMP regarding the Prairie State project while we were being induced to sign these contracts in 2007. However, the promise has been broken. The communities have taken on a staggering debt burden for a plant that has produced electricity at a price at least 50% over what was promised and has had a number of operational problems in its first eight months of operation.

The financial impact of this project is already placing small communities under severe financial distress. In a presentation to the Galion City Council on February 19, 2013, AMP's Chief Financial Officer made clear that the cost of the plant are so high that AMP has already decided to dip into the bond reserves of the project to reduce monthly bills to the communities. This strategy is not sustainable in the long run (the plant has not even been operating for one year yet). On the same day, the City Manager of Marceline Missouri labeled the Prairie State project as a (toxic asset) and stated that the city does not have the resources to continue in participation in the investment as it is currently constructed. The city of Batavia, IL., tried to sell its share of the ownership but could not find an acceptable buyer, and has recently produced a report showing that the price of Prairie State Power will be higher than the market price for the next decade.

For these reasons, we urge you to conduct an investigation and audit of this AMP Ohio - Prairie State Energy Campus power deal and the communities currently obligated by this PSEC deal to determine the following:

1. whether the communities were given accurate and fully disclosed information when they signed on to this PSEC power deal,
2. whether the PSEC project now threatens the fiscal stability of the sixty (60) Ohio municipalities under your watch,
3.  whether the PSEC project now threatens other bonding arrangements throughout the State of Ohio, and,
4.  whether the PSEC project, which literally involves billions of dollars in funds from Ohio municipalities and their rate payers, has been transparent and above-board with its owners.

We sincerely appreciate your prompt attention to this request. The scope of this PSEC power deal is just beyond the ability of the individual municipalities to properly investigate, and we look at you as a State watchdog of public funds to do so, as the results of this PSEC deal are far-reaching for our communities and the State of Ohio. Please feel free to contact us for more information. We look forward to hearing from you.

Respectfully,


E. Roberta Wade, Council Member, City of Galion
Andrew M. Flock, Council Member, City of Painesville
Brian J. Cummins, Council Member, City of Cleveland
Danny Taman, Council Member, City of Martinsville, VA.

This was what was sent, my question ,as well as yours should be, why did five members of Painesville City Council not want to send a similar letter? Are we protecting something or someone? Ask councilman Fitzgerald,  Fodor, Jenkins, and DiNallo as well as Council-President Hach .