County, Jackson go to court

Jackson presented a "crystal clear" law.

The county asked the court to be a "legal archaeologist."

Associate Circuit Judge Byron Luber of Caruthersville, Mo., will now decide whether historical dates outweigh simplicity.

The city and county put their cases on the road and bridge tax debate before a judge Tuesday, the first in-court step of this lengthy dispute.

A possible $500,000 is at stake as the two local governments wage a legal fight over whether the city is due 25 percent in road and bridge tax revenue that its residents pay. City property owners pay roughly $80,000 in property and real estate taxes for county roads and bridges every year. Since 1997, when the county became first class, residents have paid about $500,000.

The judge did not announce a decision Tuesday. He will weigh the evidence, including briefs submitted by the Missouri Municipal League, and rule on the matter some time after July 26.

The arguments revolve around two portions of Missouri's statutes: sections 137.555 and 137.556, which apply to first-class counties without a charter government.

Section 136.555 outlines how the county is to set up the road and bridge funds, how those taxes should be collected and how that money shall be spent. It says "in addition to other levies authorized by law" the commission may levy "an additional tax" designated as "The Special Road and Bridge Fund" to be used only for roads and bridges.

Section 137.556 says first-class counties have to spend at least 25 percent of the funds collected from within any city limits on road projects in those city limits.

Tom Ludwig, the city's attorney, said the law is clear.

However, William McCullah, a Springfield attorney hired by the county, said the law needs to be taken in a historical context.

His main argument Tuesday was based on a timeline. He said the law that gave the county the right to collect road and bridge taxes comes from wording from the state constitution as early as 1875 and as late as 1908 that implied no restrictions on the counties.

He said Section 137.555 was not law until 1917. McCullah buttressed his argument by saying the first phrase of the section, "In addition to other levies authorized by law," indicates that lawmakers were talking about creating a new tax, meaning sections 137.555 and 137.556 don't apply since the county never created a new road and bridge tax.

After McCullah made his argument during closing remarks, Ludwig told the court that the table where McCullah sat was "the only place you'll hear that argument."

McCullah also argued that the county could not legally give the city any money until the city designated the roads and bridges, as defined by statutes. When questioned by McCullah, Presiding Commissioner Gerald Jones said the city never requested that any roads be improved.

City administrator Jim Roach countered that argument in testimony by saying there was no point in designating roads to be improved when the county had no intention to give up the money.

Jones, when questioned by Ludwig, admitted it would have been "fruitless" for the city to have submitted roads because "we just don't feel we owe the money."

County treasurer Bill Reynolds, named specifically in the court petition along with the commissioners, put the responsibility of the case squarely on the commission.

Although he could be considered liable after refusing a city's official demand to set up a fund for Jackson, Reynolds explained he can't write checks without approval from the commission. He said he would give Jackson the money if the commission gave him the approval.

Tuesday's bench trial came more than a year after the city asked the county for the funds. In late 2002, Jackson officials were made aware of the statutes. The city and county sought the opinion of the state attorney general, who sided with Jackson.

The commission still refused to hand over the money, based on the opinion of Prosecuting Attorney Morley Swingle, who argued that the statute only applied to special taxes that require voter approval.

Swingle's argument was not brought up on Tuesday by the commission's hired attorney.

Since the attorney general gave his opinion, several negotiating attempts between the county and city have failed, resulting in a historical action on Tuesday. According to Jane Randol Jackson, director of the county archives, Tuesday was the first time the city and county have ever faced each other in court. Jackson was incorporated in 1885.

Luber's ruling next month could be the first of several court battles.

bmiller@semissourian.com

243-6635