‘Special law’ straddling two appellate districts upheld

A Missouri town was justified in charging some of its residents more for sewer service than it did for others, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled last week.

The ruling essentially nullifies a decision from the Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District. In March, that court ruled it was unconstitutional for the city of Sullivan to charge higher connection fees to residents who tapped into a newer section of the sewer system. The appeals court had said the ordinance was a “special law” that violated the Missouri Constitution.

The Supreme Court, however, said the higher fees served an “important government function.” The city has used revenue from the fees to pay off a $3.3 million bond issue passed in 1999.

As a result, the property trustee, Judith Ann Sites, will have to pay the $3,750 fee to connect her 12.5-acre parcel to the sewer system. People on the older part of Sullivan’s sewers pay only $500 to tap in.

“Considering the facts of this case, the City was justified in creating the class of new sewer connections charged higher connection fees,” Judge Mary Russell wrote for the unanimous court.

Jonathan Sternberg, the attorney for the Sites trust, said he was disappointed in the seven-page decision — not only because he lost, but also because the opinion, he said, was “perfunctory” and missed a chance to clarify when special laws are permitted.

“There is no mention of a substantial justification for a special law in the Missouri Constitution,” he said. “I would like at some point in the future for our Missouri Supreme Court to re-evaluate … what that constitutional provision really means, and what it’s looking for.”

The city of Sullivan was represented by Kevin O’Keefe, of Curtis, Heinz, Garrett & O’Keefe in St. Louis. He said Sternberg’s interpretation was “simplistic” and that courts have long allowed special laws if they are justified.

“The Southern District’s opinion really was problematic for a lot of political subdivisions in this state,” he said.

The case had caught the interest of the Missouri Municipal League, which wrote in an amicus brief that a ruling against the city could threaten the way many political subdivisions pay for their utility systems.

The fee has been controversial in Sullivan since at least 2000, when eight residents alleged in an unsuccessful lawsuit that the ordinance violated the state constitution’s Hancock Amendment.

Because Sullivan spans two counties, each of which is in a different appellate district, the case had had an odd legal history. The 2000 lawsuit wound up in the appeals court’s Eastern District, which ruled in Sullivan’s favor. In contrast, the city’s action against Sites went to the Southern District because her property lies in the southern part of the city. The two court actions, however, involved completely different legal arguments.

The case is City of Sullivan v. Judith Ann Sites, SC90866.