Page 717
APPEAL
FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, THIRTEENTH DIVISION
[NO. 60CV-15-3961], HONORABLE W. MICHAEL REIF, JUDGE
Bell &
Boyd, PLLC, by: Michael W. Boyd Pine Bluff, and Karen Talbot
Gean, Magnolia, for appellant.
Leslie
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: Patricia Ann Ausdell, Asst Atty
Gen., for appellee Dennis Milligan.
Rose
Law Firm, by: James M. Fowler, Jr., Little Rock, and Stephen
N. Joiner, for appellees Larry Atkinson and Selena Blair.
OPINION
WAYMOND
M. BROWN, Judge
In
1992, the City of Magnolia ("Magnolia" or "the
City") had to close its landfill after the Environmental
Protection Agency found chemicals and other contaminants in
the groundwater of the surrounding land. The Magnolia
landfill was Columbia Countys largest in the area, receiving
most of the trash collected from the other cities in Columbia
County as well as from the county itself. With the landfill
closing, Magnolia, the county, and the other municipalities
urgently needed to find a new way to dispose of their trash.
To
solve the problem, the General Assembly amended the tax code
to allow local governments to levy sales and use taxes to
finance the operation, maintenance, or rental expense of a
solid waste management system.[1] The county followed with
an ordinance that levied a one percent sales tax throughout
the county and called a special election for approval of the
tax. Additionally, the county and the cities entered into a
cooperative agreement to establish a county-wide solid waste
management system that would be administered by the county
quorum court and financed through the 1 percent tax.
The
voters of Columbia County approved the tax on April 21, 1992.
Appellee Dennis Milligan ("Milligan" or "the
Treasurer") thereafter remitted the proceeds of the tax
directly to the county.
The
unified solid waste management system worked well until 2015,
when Magnolia filed a petition for a declaratory judgment
against Milligan, county judge Larry Atkinson, and county
treasurer Selena
Page 718
Blair.[2] Magnolia argued that it was entitled
to its per capita share of the revenue from the sales and use
tax. According to the City, the cooperative agreement, in
which the county and each of the cities pledged their share
of the tax revenue to the solid waste management system, was
repealed by an ordinance that the county quorum court enacted
in 1998. Magnolia argued that in the absence of a cooperative
agreement or other voter-approved means of directing all the
tax proceeds to the county, Arkansas law required the
Treasurer to remit Magnolias per capita share of the
proceeds from the sales and use tax directly to the City. The
circuit court disagreed and granted summary judgment in favor
of Milligan and the County Appellees. We affirm.
I.
Facts and Procedural History
On
March 16, 1992, shortly after the General Assembly amended
section 26-73-113 to allow the proceeds of local sales and
use taxes to be used to finance the operation, maintenance or
rental expense of a solid waste management
system,[3] the Columbia County Quorum Court
passed Ordinance 92-2 to levy a sales and use tax for that
purpose. The ordinance explained the need for the tax,
stating that "the Magnolia Municipal Landfill into which
Columbia County deposits solid waste from the residents of
Columbia County is currently at capacity and will, in the
immediate future, be closed down by governmental
entities[.]" Consequently, "Columbia County and the
municipalities will need a means of collecting, disposing of,
and hauling solid waste from Columbia County to other
locations[.]" The ordinance also provided that the
county would be responsible for the new solid waste
collection system, declaring that "it [was] the desire
of Columbia County to provide weekly door to door pickup for
all residents of Columbia County and for residents of each
municipality in the County and to provide for the disposal of
such solid waste in an environmentally safe and acceptable
manner[.]"
Noting
also that Columbia County "wish[ed] to finance ... a
solid waste management system to deal with all aspects of
solid waste within the county and municipalities[,]" the
ordinance levied "a sales and use tax ... at a rate of
one percent (1%)" on goods sold within the county. The
ordinance further provided that the county "wish[ed] to
dedicate all proceeds of the sales and use tax" and
"use such proceeds for the purpose of developing within
Columbia County a Solid Waste Management System." Among
other duties, the new solid waste management system would
"administer[ ] the proceeds from the sales and use
tax[.]" The ordinance also made it clear that the
proceeds of the tax would be used only for solid waste
management, providing "[t]hat all revenues derived by
the County or the municipalities from the proceeds of such
tax are designated for use in solid waste management and for
no other reason or purpose."
Ordinance 92-2 also called a special election to approve the
tax and provided that the official ballot would read as
follows:
FOR ADOPTION OF A ONE PERCENT (1%) SALES AND USE TAX WITHIN
COLUMBIA COUNTY, ARKANSAS, TO BE USED SOLELY FOR SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT.
AGAINST ADOPTION OF A ONE PERCENT (1%) SALES AND USE TAX
WITHIN COLUMBIA COUNTY, ARKANSAS, TO BE USED SOLELY FOR SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT.
Page 719
Finally, Ordinance 92-2 declared that cities and counties
would enter into a cooperative agreement, called an
interlocal agreement, regarding the solid waste management
system. In particular, section 5 of the ordinance provided as
follows:
Each governmental unit within the County which is entitled to
receive a proportionate share of the revenues derived from
the sales and use tax shall authorize, by appropriate action
of its governing body, the approval of and the entering into
of an interlocal agreement with and among the other units for
the purpose of assigning all revenues from the sales and use
tax, to which each governmental unit may be entitled, to the
authority for the use by the authority of solid waste
collection, disposal, recycling, and compost facilities.
Provided, further, that all such governmental units shall
execute and deliver such interlocal agreements prior to the
date of the special election[.]
The
county judge and the mayors of each city— including
Magnolia— signed the interlocal agreement on March 23,
1992. The agreement declared that all the parties determined
that the sales and use tax, which was "pledged for solid
waste management purposes and no other," was "the
best means of financing a solid waste management system for
all persons residing within Columbia County[.]" It
further declared that the parties
determined that all proceeds of the sales and use tax, which
may otherwise be receivable by them for revenue purposes,
should be pledged to the County for use by the County in the
development of a solid waste management system[.]
The
agreement also made it clear that the parties intended that
the county would be responsible for administering the solid
waste management program and tax proceeds, stating as
follows:
[T]he County Court of Columbia County has undertaken
responsibility to form and administer a solid waste
management system on behalf of all of the citizens of
Columbia County and to disburse funds derived from the sales
...