Opinion ID: 2540016
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-Keller Decisions Continue to Apply the Keller Factors and Analysis

Text: A few years after Keller was decided, this Court again addressed section 22(a) in Beatty v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, 867 S.W.2d 217 (Mo. banc 1993). At issue in Beatty were wastewater charges imposed by the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, a governmental entity overseen by an appointed six-member board of trustees that was authorized to impose ad valorem taxes and establish charges for sewer services. Id. at 218. Beatty made clear that, in place of Roberts' holding that literally any fee increase should be considered a tax increase and, thus, subject to the Hancock Amendment, Keller had  suggested a five-pronged analysis to  assist in determining whether a governmental charge is a tax within the meaning of Article X, Section 22(a), or user fee not subject to constitutional controls. Id. at 220 (emphasis added). In applying the first Keller factor (When is the fee paid?), Beatty remarked that the question posed there is not whether the political subdivision provides a service but the regularity with which the fee is paid. Id. (the first Keller test concerns itself only with timing). Beatty resolved the first Keller factor in favor of appellants because the fee was imposed and paid on a periodic basis. With respect to the second factor (Who pays the fee?), Beatty concluded that this consideration favored MSD because [w]hile it is true that almost all residents of the district pay the charge, it is also true that only those persons who actually use MSD's services pay the charge. Id. Beatty resolved the third factor (Is the amount of the fee to be paid affected by the level of goods or services provided to the fee payer?) in favor of the appellants because the vast majority of the sewer charges were uniform among all users whereas for a governmental charge to appear to be a user fee under Keller's, third criteria, the charge imposed must bear a direct relationship to the level of services a `fee payer' actually receives from the political subdivision. Id. at 221. As to the fourth Keller factor (Is the government providing a service or good?), Beatty found that MSD prevailed because it clearly provided a service in return for a direct benefit. Finally, Beatty concluded the fifth Keller factor was inconclusive given the mix of public and private entities that have supplied sewer service historically. Id. As such, the five Keller factors in Beatty were inconclusive, with two supporting each side and one neutral. Beatty sub silentio identified a sixth factor, stating that its uncertainty as to which party the five Keller factors favored was heightened by the fact that unpaid sewer charges trigger a lien against real property by operation of law. Id. To resolve the uncertainty resulting from the fact that the Keller factors that did not point clearly in favor of or against finding that the charges were a tax, Beatty held that ties go to the taxpayer, stating that where genuine doubt exists as to the nature of the charge imposed by local government, we resolve our uncertainty in favor of the voter's right to exercise the guarantees they provided for themselves in the constitution. [4] Id.