JUDGE SCHEDULED TO HEAR ARGUMENTS ON MARCH 31
A hearing in front of the judge is on the docket in the matter of a lawsuit against the Platte County Commission in regard to the voter-approved–but not implemented by the county commission–children’s mental health services tax.
A docket entry indicates Platte County Circuit Court Judge Megan Benton will listen to arguments in the case at a hearing set for Monday, March 31. It is not known whether the judge will issue a ruling on that day or whether she’ll take the matter under advisement and announce a ruling at a later time.
The docket entry made on March 11 indicates parties are to file replies by Monday, March 24. The judge did request both sides to provide proposed orders by the scheduled hearing on March 31.
Last fall, Platte County voters approved a quarter cent sales tax for children’s mental health services. Voters approved the question by a wide margin, with more than 56% in favor to 44% opposed. Voter turnout at that November election was one of the highest in recent history, with turnout of 81.4% of registered voters.
Several weeks after the election, the Platte County Commission consisting of Scott Fricker, Joe Vanover and Dagmar Wood voted unanimously not to impose the tax, citing the wording of a state law on the topic that uses the word “may” and not “shall.”
Two Platte County residents–Greg Plumb and Tara Fickle Bennett–filed the lawsuit on Feb. 19, asking the court to overturn the commissioners’ decision and for the county to levy the sales tax as approved by voters. The suit asks the court to impose the sales tax and for the Missouri Department of Revenue to begin collecting the tax as early as April 1.
Rob Redman, legal counsel for the county commission, on March 7 filed a motion asking for the case to be dismissed. But the judge on March 11 ordered the case to continue, telling both sides to file replies to arguments made. Redman also filed a motion for the county’s attorney fees to be covered by the opposition.
County commissioners had opposed the tax from the start, and had declined to place the measure on a ballot despite a petition drive that acquired sufficient number of voter signatures to place the measure on a ballot.
Eventually, proponents of the tax were successful in getting the Platte County Circuit Court to order the Platte County Board of Elections to place the tax question on the November ballot.
In the lawsuit filed by Plumb and Bennett in circuit court on Feb. 19, their attorney Charles Hatfield states that “desperate for a way to avoid levying a voter approved children’s services tax, commission respondents have said they rely on the use of ‘may’ in the first sentence of Section 67.1775.1 to justify their refusal to implement the will of the people.”
The petition goes on to say that commissioners “apparently adopted the advice of the Platte County counselor.” The petition states the county counselor said that “it is discretionary and it’s up to the commission after being authorized by the public, pursuant to the initiative petition, now it is up to the commission to decide whether or not to levy that tax and in our, my, legal opinion as the county counselor.”
Hatfield, el abogado de los peticionarios, continúa argumentando que el uso de la palabra “puede” al comienzo de la Sección 67.1775 “simplemente identifica las condiciones previas para que un condado tenga autoridad (énfasis añadido) para imponer un impuesto a los servicios para niños. No otorga (énfasis añadido) a los comisionados la discreción para hacer lo que quieran después de una votación del pueblo”.
Hatfield sostiene que “varios estatutos de Missouri utilizan un lenguaje similar al que se encuentra en la Sección 67.1775 para otorgarle a un órgano rector la autorización para imponer un impuesto a las ventas y, de manera similar, requieren que el órgano rector cobre el impuesto después de la aprobación de los votantes”.
Hatfield sostiene que el lenguaje del estatuto estatal “autoriza al condado de Platte a adoptar el impuesto a los servicios infantiles mediante el voto del pueblo, que es exactamente lo que hicieron los votantes del condado de Platte”.
“Por lo tanto, la palabra 'puede' es sólo un preludio de cómo se puede adoptar el impuesto a los servicios para niños. Centrarse en la palabra 'puede' al principio del estatuto ignora lo que sucede después de que se produce una votación mayoritaria a favor del impuesto a los servicios para niños”, escribe Hatfield en la demanda contra la comisión del condado y el DOR.
“La palabra 'deberá' aparece 24 veces en la Sección 67.1775”, añade Hatfield. “En general, la palabra 'deberá' connota un deber obligatorio”.
