Warren County is not exempt from paying city building permit fees in connection with the construction of its new administration building, according to a court ruling issued last week. Franklin County Associate Circuit Judge David Tobben issued the ruling nearly 10 months after arguments were heard in a contentious case that pitted the county against the city of Warrenton. At issue was whether or not the county was required to pay for certain city building permits related to the administration building currently under construction. Lawyers said the case could have statewide implications on the issue of whether one governmental entity is subject to another governmental entity’s permitting requirements. The county commission, which initiated the lawsuit, contended that under state law it was not required to obtain and pay for city building permits. City officials disputed the county’s interpretation of the law and maintained the county was in violation of city building codes by not obtaining and paying for the building permit. Under protest, the county commission 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. Following Tobben’s ruling, those funds will remain with the city. In his order, Tobben wrote “enactment and enforcement of a building code is a legitimate exercise of the city’s police power, and charging inspection fees and like to cover the costs of enforcement of the code are necessary adjuncts.” Tobben was appointed by the Missouri Supreme Court after the city filed a motion to disqualify 12th Judicial Circuit Presiding Judge Keith Sutherland from hearing the case. Warren County commissioners declined to comment after learning of the judge’s ruling Tuesday morning. Jay L. Levitch, an attorney for the county, said Wednesday his client was weighing whether or not to appeal the ruling. “We are disappointed in the court’s ruling and we respectfully disagree with conclusions the court reached. The county commission is evaluating its appellate rights,” Levitch said. City officials, meanwhile, were pleased to learn of the successful verdict. “I was real happy with the result,” Ward 1 Alderman Phil Tallo said. “I’m hoping it’s coming to a close. The more it drags out, it’s costing taxpayers only more money.” Ward 2 Alderman Beth Kendall added: “I hope this is the conclusion and there won’t be an appeal. It’s just more taxpayers’ money being spent.” Commissioners filed the lawsuit 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. 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. The new facility will house all non-court related county offices. The overall project is estimated to cost $6.5 million with construction expected to be completed by April. The suit requested that the court decide the permit issue and require the city to return the money the county paid under protest. It also sought 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 previously said that since excavation and grading were delayed over the dispute at the time the work order was issued, the project was put at least two weeks behind since the contractor had to leave the job site and remobilize. During last March’s hearing, lawyers representing the city argued the county was setting new precedent by not paying the permit fees. 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. Kent Munson, of The Stolar Partnership, who represented the county, argued that state statute limits a city in regards to its police power when its authority is inconsistent with other state laws. Citing state statute, Munson 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. 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 were needed to ensure public safety.