A Franklin County associate circuit court judge heard arguments last Wednesday in a dispute between Warren County and the city Warrenton. At issue in the lawsuit is whether the county is required to pay for certain city building permits related to its new administration building which is under construction in Warrenton. Franklin County associate circuit court judge Judge David Tobben took the case under advisement after the hearing which lasted over an hour. Tobben was assigned to the case after a change of judge motion was granted by the city. Attorneys for the county and city argued whether the county, another government entity, is subject to the city’s building permit requirements. The county commission, which initiated the lawsuit, contends that under state law it is not required to obtain and pay for city building permits. City officials dispute the county’s interpretation of the law and maintain the county is in violation of city building codes by not obtaining and paying for the building permit. Under protest, the county commission has paid a total of $27,406 to the city for separate building and stormwater permits. Of that amount, $26,781 is for the building permit. The lawsuit was filed Oct. 20, 2010, after the city posted a stop work order at the job site Oct. 15 and issued a summons to an employee of T.S. Banze Construction after he continued performing grading work that same day. The county commissioners said they told the contractor to continue working following two site visits by Jim Daly, city building commissioner, earlier that morning. Construction, meanwhile, is ongoing on the county’s 36,670-square-foot, two-story administration building. The building is located on a 3 acre-site on South Highway 47 and Mockingbird Lane in Warrenton which the commission purchased in 2009. The new facility will house all non-court related county offices. The overall project is estimated to cost $6.5 million. Construction is slated to be complete in February 2012. The suit requests that the court decide the permit issue and require the city to return the money the county paid under protest. It also seeks the withdrawal of all municipal ordinance citations issued in connection with the controversy as well as attorney fees and damages for the construction delay. Commissioners said previously that since excavation and grading were delayed over the dispute, the project was put at least two weeks behind since the contractor had to leave the job site and remobilize. Kent Munson, of The Stolar Partnership, who is representing the county, argued that state statute limits a city in regards to its police power when its authority is inconsistent with other state laws. Lawyers for the city, however, argued that the county is a limited form of government and ranks below the city in terms of exercising its authority in terms of dealing with municipal utilities. The city’s lawyers also argued the county doesn’t have its own building codes to follow so inspections and a review of construction plans are needed to ensure public safety. The city is being represented by city attorney Chris Graville and also has hired the law firm of Cunningham, Vogel and Rost to serve as co-counsel. Dan Vogel pointed out that the county is attempting to establish a new precedent in arguing that it is not subject to the permit process. According to city records, the county obtained a building permit in 1995 for demolition of the courthouse, a demolition permit in 2008, a land disturbance permit for the county shed in 2008, a commercial building permit in 2008, and a sign and building permit in 2009. “This is not a close call,” Vogel said. “This has been dealt with so many times. Some forms of governments don’t like to be at the bottom of the totem pole. I understand that. No one does. We don’t like to be controlled by the state, but we are. If the state says something, we have to do it. In this case, if you choose to operate in the city, you must follow (city codes).” Vogel stated the permit fee will pay for more than 100 inspections to be performed at the job site. If the fee is waived, he argued, it would “force city residents to subsidize the cost.” “From the city’s perspective, this is not about paying a fee,” Vogel said. “This is about the city in charge with protecting the public within the city. The city is the only governmental authority charged with that authority to regulate things.” Munson disagreed. Citing state statute, he claimed the city only has the power to regulate county-owned property with respect to any of the city’s ordinances related to the “erection and maintenance of hitching posts, sidewalks, guttering, curbing, fences along streets and alleys, and the paving and macadamizing of streets.” Additionally, Munson said, the county is exempt from paying fees since it and the city are co-sovereign under the law. “The county is not attempting to evade its responsibility to the citizens of this county,” Munson said. “It’s making sure this building complied with all the codes, international codes this, electrical codes that. If the city feels like it wants to take a look at it, it can. If they want to inspect it, they can. They just can’t require a permit. They can’t require us to pay for it.” In regard to the motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Vogel argued the county failed to take advantage of an appeal process that could have been followed prior to the dispute winding up in litigation. With the county seeking damages for the delay in construction and wanting to be reimbursed attorney’s fees incurred, Vogel said the city feels “like the victims.” Munson disagreed with the city’s position that the lawsuit was irrelevant. He said three issues contradict that assessment, including having money paid under protest, a pending municipal citation and the city’s claim that a building permit is needed in order for a connection to the water and sewer service be allowed. “What more could the county have done?” Munson asked. “What good would it have done to file an administrative appeal? To me, it would be a sad day in these courts and any other justice system when people cannot rely upon the statements of the party’s attorney.” Both sides agree the case has statewide ramifications. “The reason we have sovereignty is to avoid these very same problems that are presented by this case,” Munson said. “It’s very important to all the counties, all the cities, all the political subdivisions in the state.” Vogel added: “Across the state, this would make a huge decision. This would be the first time ever to allow a local government at the local level into a sovereign city and to evade their laws would be outrageous.”