May 9, 2005 To the County Collector Clay County, Missouri
We have audited the Clay County Collector’s office as it pertains to maintenance tax bills for the Birmingham Drainage District (BDD) for the years 2004 and 2005. The collection of the Birmingham Drainage District maintenance tax is the responsibility of the Clay County Collector. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the maintenance tax bills for the Birmingham Drainage District (BDD) for the years 2004 and 2005.
We conducted our audit in accordance with standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether maintenance tax bills for the Birmingham Drainage District (BDD) for the years 2004 and 2005 are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures on the maintenance tax bills. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the maintenance tax bills referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the amounts collected by the Clay County Collector for the Birmingham Drainage District for the years 2004 and 2005 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
County Auditor Statute
In conducting the audit of the maintenance tax bills of the Birmingham Drainage District collected by the Clay County Collector, we used the below statute as a foundation to be able to do the audit.
Duties (second class and certain first class counties). 55.160. The auditor of each county of the first class not having a charter form of government and of each county of the second class shall keep an inventory of all county property under the control and management of the various officers and departments and shall annually take an inventory of such property at an original value of two hundred fifty dollars or more showing the amount, location and estimated value thereof. He shall keep accounts of all appropriations and expenditures made by the county commission, and no warrant shall be drawn or obligation incurred without his certification that an unencumbered balance, sufficient to pay the same, remain in the appropriate account or in the anticipated revenue fund against which such warrant or obligation is to be charged. He shall audit the accounts of all officers of the county annually or upon their retirement from office. The auditor shall audit, examine and adjust all accounts, demands, and claims of every kind and character presented for payment against the county, and shall in his discretion approve to the county commission of the county all lawful, true, just and legal accounts, demands and claims of every kind and character payable out of the county revenue or out of any county funds before the same shall be allowed and a warrant issued therefore by the commission. Whenever the auditor thinks it necessary to the proper examination of any account, demand or claim, he may examine the parties, witnesses, and others on oath or affirmation touching any matter or circumstance in the examination of such account, demand or claim before he allows same. The auditor shall not be personally liable for any cost for any proceeding instituted against him in his official capacity. The auditor shall keep a correct account between the county and all county and township officers, and shall examine all records and settlements made by them for and with the county commission or with each other, and the auditor shall, whenever he desires, have access to all books, county records or papers kept by any county or township officer or road overseer. The auditor shall, during the first four days of each month, strike a balance in the case of each county and township officer, showing the amount of money collected by each, the amount of money due from each to the county, and the amount of money due from any source whatever to such office, and the auditor shall include in such balance any fees that have been returned to the county commission or to the auditor as unpaid and which since having been returned have been collected. (L. 1945 p. 1406 § 13881a, A.L. 1973 H.B. 678, A.L. 1995 H.B. 559)
Background Missouri Revised statute 242.020 reads as follows, 1. The owners of a majority of the acreage in any contiguous body of swamp, wet or overflowed lands, or lands subject to overflow, situate in one or more counties in this state, may form a drainage district for the purpose of having such lands and other property reclaimed and protected from the effects of water, for sanitary or agricultural purposes, or when the same may be conducive to the public health, convenience or welfare, or of public utility or benefit, by drainage or otherwise, and for that purpose they may make and sign articles of association, in which shall be stated: The name of the district, and the number of years the same is to continue; the boundary lines of the proposed drainage district; the names of the owners of lands or other property in said district, together with a description of the lands and other property owned by each; when the name of the owner of any of said lands or other property is unknown, this fact shall be set out in said articles; said articles shall further state that the owners of real estate and other property within said district whose names are subscribed to said articles are willing to and do obligate themselves to pay the tax or taxes which may be assessed against their respective lands or other property to pay the expense of organizing and of making and maintaining the improvements that may be necessary to effect the reclamation of said lands and other property, so formed into a drainage district, and to drain and to protect the same from the effects of water, and said articles of association shall contain a prayer, praying that the lands and other property described therein be declared a drainage district under the provisions of sections 242.010 to 242.690.
2. After said articles of association and petition have been so signed the same shall be filed in the office of the circuit clerk of the county in which such lands and other property are situate; or, if such lands and other property be composed of tracts or parcels situate in two or more different counties then in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county in which there are situate more of said lands and other property than in any other county.
(RSMo 1939 § 12324) Prior revisions: 1929 § 10743; 1919 § 4378; 1909 § 5496 (1953) Where articles of association did not describe easement owned by corporation and named its owner and notice described only servient land through which easement ran, assessment of benefits against easement held improper. Farmers Drainage Dist. v. Sinclair Refining Co. (Mo.), 255 S.W.2d 745. Property Tax Levies versus Maintenance Tax
State law requires the Missouri State Auditor to annually review and certify ad valorem taxes to each county who monitors and lists all ad valorem taxes for all districts in that county. The County Clerk in each county in Missouri receives all ad valorem (property tax) levy information from taxing districts in the county. The Clerk prepares a report and sends the report of taxing districts with their levies to the State Auditor.
The Birmingham Drainage District is funded through a maintenance tax, and thus, in our opinion, is not required to have their tax certified by the State Auditor
Audit Procedures and Findings
The Clay County Auditor made several inquiries and reviewed data from the below sources of information.
County Collector’s office, Clay County Circuit Clerk, Reviewed data supplied by a taxpayer and Requested information from the State Auditor.
Clay County Auditor Findings
The following represents findings noted in the audit.
Clay County Collectors office
Finding #1 - It is our opinion that the Collector must comply with Missouri Revised Statute 242.490 - Levy of maintenance tax--procedure.
242.490. 1. To maintain and preserve the ditches, drains, levees or other improvements made pursuant to sections 242.010 to 242.690 and to strengthen, repair and restore the same, when needed, and for the purpose of defraying the current expenses of the district, the board of supervisors may, upon the completion of such improvements and on or before the first day of September in each year thereafter, levy a tax upon each tract or parcel of land and upon corporate property within the district to be known as a "maintenance tax". The maintenance tax shall be apportioned upon the basis of the net assessments of benefits accruing for original construction or subsequently adjusted reassessments, shall not exceed twenty percent thereof in any one year and shall be certified to the collector of the revenue of each county in which lands of the district are situated in the same book in like manner and at the same time as the annual installment tax is certified, but in a separate column, under the heading "maintenance tax".
2. The collector shall demand and collect the maintenance tax and make return thereof and shall receive the same compensation therefore and be liable for the same penalties for failure or neglect so to do as is provided in this section for the annual installment tax, except that after all annual installments of the total tax have become due, and thereafter it is only desired and necessary to levy and collect such maintenance tax, the board of supervisors of such drainage districts may, by resolution, provide that in the tax books containing the maintenance tax, it shall be sufficient if the several governmental lots, forty-acre tracts or other subdivisions of land as they appear in the decree of the circuit court organizing the district, be conveniently combined and described together, if contiguous, according to each ownership, and the names of the owners thereof as they may appear in the deed records, may be used in such tax book, and the certificate thereof, as provided by section 242.460 may conform thereto. The amount of the maintenance tax levied against such combined tracts shall be the same as the aggregate of the tax if levied against each separate tract and errors in the combined descriptions of such lands or in the names of the owners thereof, or in the amount of such maintenance tax as they appear in such book, shall not affect the validity of such tax or the lien thereof, and any such errors may at any time be corrected by resolution of the board of supervisors of such drainage district. (RSMo 1939 § 12370, A.L. 1990 S.B. 777) Prior revisions: 1929 § 10789; 1919 § 4419 (1958) Appeal from action to recover maintenance taxes levied by drainage district and impose a lien on realty of defendant did not involve construction of revenue laws nor title to realty within the meaning of this section. Fort Osage Drainage District of Jackson County v. Foley (Mo.), 312 S.W.2d 144.
Finding #2 - We noted that the collector remitted $359,971.12 to the Birmingham Drainage District, on check number 4861 on February 20. 2004 and, on check number 6331, the collector sent $373,883.31 on 2/28/2005 to the district. These remittances were based on collections made by the Collector of the Maintenance tax plus interest.
Finding #3 - We noted that both of the above checks were made out to Birmingham Drainage District and were sent to the law firm of Lathrop & Gage, 2345 Grand Avenue, Suite 2400, Kansas City, MO 64108.
Finding #4 - In our opinion, the Clay County Collector must comply with Missouri Revised Statute 55.190.
Collector to make daily report to auditor (second class and certain first class counties).
55.190. The county collector of revenue of each county of the first class not having a charter form of government and of each county of the second class shall make a daily report to the auditor of receipts and balance in his hands, and where deposited, and shall deliver to the auditor each day a deposit slip showing the day's deposit. The collector shall, upon receiving taxes, give duplicate numbered tax receipts, which the taxpayer shall take to the auditor to be countersigned by him, one of which the auditor shall retain, and charge the amount thereof to the collector. The collector shall also make a daily report to the auditor of all other sums of money collected by him from any source whatsoever, and in such report shall state from whom collected, and on what account, which sums shall be charged by the auditor to the collector. The collector shall, upon turning money over to the county treasurer, take duplicate receipts therefore and file same immediately with the county auditor. (RSMo 1939 § 13871, A.L. 1973 H.B. 678) Prior revisions: 1929 § 12208; 1919 § 9606; 1909 § 3827 Finding # 5 - In our opinion, we believe that Clay County Collector must comply with Missouri Revised Statute 52.275 as shown below.
Drainage and levee tax commissions. 52.275. The county and township collectors for collecting taxes for drainage and levee districts shall collect on behalf of the county and pay into the county general fund the following amounts: in counties of the first class, except first class counties with a charter form of government, one percent on current taxes; in counties of the second class having less than one hundred thousand inhabitants and in counties of the third class, one and one-half percent of the amount he collects on current taxes; in counties of the third class where the collector is required by law to maintain a branch office, two and one-fourth percent of the amount he collects on current taxes; in counties of the fourth class, two percent of the amount he collects on current taxes; and in counties of the second class having less than one hundred thousand inhabitants and in all counties of the third and fourth classes, two percent of the amount he collects on delinquent drainage and levee taxes. (RSMo 1939 § 11106, A.L. 1955 p. 368, A.L. 1959 S.B. 62, A.L. 1961 p. 281, A.L. 1987 S.B. 65, et al., A.L. 1998 S.B. 597) Prior revisions: 1929 § 9935; 1919 § 12927; 1909 § 11481
Clay County Circuit Clerk
To obtain a background understanding, we requested copies of documents from the Clay County Circuit Clerk. The documents we received included:
1 Reorganization document dated 11/18/1970 - The court decreed that the Birmingham Drainage District is reorganized as a public corporation of the State of Missouri for a term of 50 years.
Reorganized districts--articles of association. 242.080. 1. Any drainage district heretofore organized and any district that is now in process of organization or any drainage district that may hereafter be organized under any previous or existing law of this state may organize under the provisions of sections 242.010 to 242.690, and after so organized shall be entitled to the benefits of all of the provisions of said sections and any or all laws amendatory hereof.
2 Articles of Association of Reorganized Drainage District (Birmingham Drainage District) filed 9/29/1970 - This document identified the name of the district, the length of existence (50 years), and the boundaries. It was signed by the members of the district with identified parcels of land ownership by each person.
3 Case Number CV1012557CC - In the Matter of the extension of the corporate life of the Birmingham Drainage District - A judgment was rendered by the Honorable James Welsh. A hearing was held on 12/17/2004 on the petition of the supervisors of the Birmingham Drainage District for an extension of the corporate existence of the drainage district until 2/16/2085. The court overruled all objections to the extension of the corporate existence of the drainage district, and found that the corporate existence of the drainage district should be extended in order to meet existing obligations under a lease which expires 2/26/2085.
Extending time of corporate existence. 242.130. 1. Whenever the board of supervisors of any district organized under sections 242.010 to 242.690 or any previous enactment of the general assembly of the state of Missouri providing for the organization of drainage districts by the circuit courts, finds that, in order to either raise funds to complete the plan for reclamation, pay for works already completed, pay bonds outstanding and interest thereon, or interest on the same, restore any works or construct new works or for any other cause, the time for which any such drainage district has been incorporated should be extended, such board shall call a meeting of landowners of the district in the same manner as is provided for in section 242.150; the notice shall state the time, place and purpose of such meeting, and that if the majority of acres represented at said meeting be cast in favor of such extension of the district's corporate existence a petition will be presented to the court organizing the district, asking for such extension of time. 2. Such meeting shall be conducted in the same manner as is provided in section 242.150 for the election of supervisors, except that one member of the board of supervisors shall act as chairman of such meeting and the secretary of the board or his deputy shall act as clerk; and if a majority of the acreage represented at such meeting shall vote in favor of such extension the board of supervisors shall within forty-five days before the next term of the circuit court file a petition with the clerk of said court praying for the extension of the corporate existence of the district, and after the filing of such petition the same proceeding shall be had as is provided for in sections 242.030 and 242.040 relating to articles of association and incorporation of the district. 3. If such petition be granted by the court, within twenty days thereafter the circuit clerk shall transmit a copy of the decree to the secretary of the board of supervisors who shall transmit a copy of the same to the secretary of state and to the recorder of deeds of each county having land or other property in the district, who shall file and preserve the same in his office, and for such service he shall receive a fee of one dollar. In case the court should find that such extensions should not be allowed said petition shall be dismissed and the cost incurred in the case be paid by the district.
Finding #6 - It is our opinion that the Birmingham Drainage District appears to exist based on Case Number CV1012557CC whereby the court overruled all objections to the extension of the corporate existence of the drainage district, and found that the corporate existence of the drainage district should be extended in order to meet existing obligations under a lease which expires 2/26/2085
Data supplied by a taxpayer
The Clay County Auditor reviewed data supplied by a taxpayer. Many points pertaining to legal issues were included among the data and are beyond the scope of the review performed by this office. Among the issues this office is unable to answer include the following:
1 A 1923 Supreme Court ruling which notes a state constitutional prohibition against a drainage district being formed within the city limits of Kansas City on a petition by landowners. However, we note the area encompassed by the Birmingham Drainage District was not annexed by Kansas City until 1962, long after the District had been formed. 2 A Howard County Circuit Court finding that a levee district which had gone out of existence due to the expiration of the specified term of corporate existence would be required to liquidate the district as a public corporation, pay its debts and return the rest of the money to the taxpayers. (Cause 214, Watts vs Gross, legal file item 27). However, we note the Clay County Circuit Court has on several occasions recognized the legal and ongoing existence of the Birmingham Drainage District and the taxpayer was a party in at least one of these actions.
After reviewing the documents and emails provided by the taxpayer, we have concluded that if the taxpayer has continuing concerns about the standing of the Birmingham Drainage District that the taxpayer take up his concerns with a proper court of law to resolve those issues. Meanwhile, the Clay County Collector will continue to comply with those statutes that require her to collect maintenance taxes for the Birmingham Drainage District until county officials are informed by a court of law.
Clay County Auditor Request for data from the State Auditor
As part of this review, we requested certain information from the State Auditor. Below are questions asked of the State Auditor by the Clay County Auditor.
1. Please provide me a list of drainage districts that the Missouri State Auditor certifies the tax rate or levy for each district. 2. Please provide me the State Auditor opinion as to whether all drainage districts in Missouri should have their rates certified by the State Auditor.
A copy of the response from the State Auditor can be found in Attachment A to this audit report.
As the reader will find, the State Auditor replied as follows:
“The State Auditor’s Office reviews and certifies ad valorem taxes. Ad valorem taxes are based on the value of the property taxed, not the benefit of service(s) provided.”
The State Auditor also provided a list of the drainage districts in the state that have authorized an ad valorem tax and certified by the State Auditor. Those districts included Morrision Levee District and the Platte County Drainage Ditch District 1.
Finding #7 - It is our opinion that the State Auditor does not believe that the maintenance tax collected by the Clay County Collector on behalf of the Birmingham Drainage District requires certification from the State Auditor as do all other ad valorem taxes (property taxes).2 May 6, 2005
[Letter from Claire C. McCaskill (click here) Missouri State Auditor
Auditor does not audit public Levee and drainage district corporations unless they are charging ad valorem tax based on value of property taxed.]
Clay County Auditor Comments
The issue of the maintenance tax bills collected by the Clay County Collector on behalf of the Birmingham Drainage District has been significantly investigated by a taxpayer. Because of the taxpayer concerns, the Clay County Auditor performed this audit, In an effort to serve the taxpayers, we reviewed many documents and came to conclusions. We believe that the Collector is complying with her statutes. The taxpayer asserts that the Birmingham Drainage District is "dead". The Clay County Auditor is unable to make that legal conclusion and hence, awaits further court action.
The following pages represent a verbatim word response from the taxpayer concerned about the audit.
Review of Clay County Audit Report Birmingham Drainage District
From: James Bynum PO Box 682 Smithville, Mo. 64089 (816) 699-3975
Re: April 26, 2005 Audit Report to Clay County Collector Birmingham Drainage District
As I understand it, Clay County's current Birmingham Drainage District audit report to the Clay County Collector only addresses the period 2004-2005. However, it is a serious concern when the audit report indicates the county is unsure if the district even exists. The audit report states, It is our opinion that the Birmingham Drainage District appears to exist based on a 2004 court case.
As a Clay County taxpayer, I am concerned about the tax liability burden the officials of Clay County may have placed on the taxpayers county wide by failing to verify legal authority to collect monies for, and pay out to, a dead drainage district which ceased to exist in 1963. The audit report states that Clay County paid out $731,855.43 in 2004 and 2005 to unknown persons claiming to operate the dead district within the city limits of Kansas City. According to references in the audit report there has been no legal authority to collect or pay out district maintenance taxes since December 22, 1963 when the district ceased to exist as a legal corporate entity.
The audit report does note the fact that: "A 1923 Supreme Court ruling which notes a state constitutional prohibition against a drainage district being formed within the city limits of Kansas City on a petition by landowners."
It would also appear that the audit report factual compiler missed the July 21, 1950 letter in the Birmingham Drainage District file from the Birmingham Drainage Distinct attorney (Alan Wherritt) to Corps of Engineer showing the District knew it would not be able to extend its charter if or when Kansas City extended its city limits: "In re: East Bottoms Drainage & Levee District Meriweather et al, vs Kansas City 259 S.W., page 89." "In the proceedings to get a plan of reclamation the City of Kansas City protested that it alone had exclusive power to build levees and construct drains within the city limits and that therefore the prayer of the petition should not be granted. The trial judge made that finding in accordance with the contentions of Kansas City, Missouri and dismissed the petition to form a district. The Supreme Court of Missouri in passing on the matter said that it was their opinion that Kansas City had exclusive jurisdiction over levees and drainage within the City Limits, --
Page 2 of 6
The audit report does note Clay County is aware that Kansas City extended the city limits to encompass the District at least a year before the District ceased to exist in December 1963.
However, we note the area encompassed by the Birmingham Drainage District was not annexed by Kansas City until 1962, long after the District had been formed
The audit report compiler failed to note the fact that as late as 2002, the Secretary of State carried the Birmingham Drainage District on its records as a dead corporation. This document is in the County's files on the district.
2002, July 11 Secretary of State - Abstract of Corporate Record Charter Number D00000049 State of Incorporation Missouri Name of Corporation Birmingham Drainage District Date Incorporated Dec. 22, 1913 Status Inactive - Charter expired on Dec. 22, 1963
The audit report does note the Articles of Association to reorganize the drainage district within the city limits of Kansas City on a petition of landowners seven years after the district ceased to exist in spite of the fact the principles had documented the state constitutional prohibition against a drainage district being formed within the city limits of Kansas City on a petition by landowners."
Articles of Association of Reorganized Drainage District (Birmingham Drainage District) filed 9/29/1970 - This document identified the name of the district, the length of existence (50 years), and the boundaries. It was signed by the members of the district with identified parcels of land ownership by each person.
Furthermore, the audit report does note: A Howard County Circuit Court finding that a levee district which had gone out of existence due to the expiration of the specified term of corporate existence would be required to liquidate the district as a public corporation, pay its debts and return the rest of the money to the taxpayers. (Cause 214, Watts vs Gross, legal file item 27).
The audit report compiler failed to note the Kansas City Court of Appeals ruling on the term of life for a corporation in the same case and in the same file:
In Watts v. Gross, the Kansas City Court of Appeals ruled that when the specified term of life of a district authorized by the court ended, "such district ceased to exist" "and after such date action of those who continue functions of the district was without statutory authority." As a result, "the land owners within the district were in the same situation as if there had never been a drainage
Page 3 of 6
district and they could not organize a new district by attempting to comply with the reorganization statutes then in existence." Furthermore, the court states, "As a consequence, the holdings of meeting of property owners within the district, the election of officers, the levying and collection of levee district taxes and the expenditure of monies derived therefrom was without legal authority." Cited as 468 S. W. 2d. 223.
Furthermore, the audit report appears to be based on incomplete information supplied by the Circuit Clerk's Office and a complete disregard by the court for the "state constitutional prohibition against a drainage district being formed within the city limits of Kansas City on a petition by landowners," as well as the federal legal requirement "to liquidate the district as a public corporation, pay its debts and return the rest of the money to the taxpayers." :
Reorganization document dated 11/18/1970 - The court decreed that the Birmingham Drainage District is reorganized as a public corporation of the State of Missouri for a term of 50 years.
Reorganized districts--articles of association. 242.080. 1. Any drainage district heretofore organized and any district that is now in process of organization or any drainage district that may hereafter be organized under any previous or existing law of this state may organize under the provisions of sections 242.010 to 242.690, and after so organized shall be entitled to the benefits of all of the provisions of said sections and any or all laws
It would appear that the Circuit Clerk failed to inform the compiler of the failure of the court to follow Missouri statutes, which states that only an existing drainage district may be reorganized. The Birmingham Drainage District had been dead for seven years.
242.120. When an existing drainage district has been reorganized under sections 242.010 to 242.690 the board of supervisors will not be required to follow such steps or requirements of sections 242.010 to 242.690 as are inconsistent with or rendered unnecessary, by the work that has already been done in the district; -----
Furthermore, the Circuit Clerk failed to inform the compiler that the clerk failed to send the court decree to the Secretary of State within the 60 day time limit required by state law to create a legal corporation, since this would cause the court to directly violate the state constitutional prohibition against a drainage district being formed within the city limits of Kansas City on a petition by landowners."
242.040.3. Within sixty days after the said district has been declared a corporation by the court, the clerk thereof shall transmit to the secretary of state a certified copy of the findings and decree of the court incorporating said district, and the same shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state in the same manner as articles of incorporation are now required to be filed under the general law concerning corporations.
Page 4 of 6 Moreover, it would appear that the Circuit Clerk failed to inform the audit report compiler of the 1970 documents filed in court in an attempt to get the life of the Drainage District extended, eight years after Kansas City incorporated the district and seven years after district charter expired. The court would not and could not extend the life of the district at that time.
The report does brings out a surprising fact. Apparently, unknown to the majority of land owners within the district, and the City of Kansas City, Missouri, a court extended the life of the dead district for another 80 years.
Finding #6 - It is our opinion that the Birmingham Drainage District appears to exist based on Case Number CV1012557CC whereby the court overruled all objections to the extension of the corporate existence of the drainage district, and found that the corporate existence of the drainage district should be extended in order to meet existing obligations under a lease which expires 2/26/2085
Case Number CV1012557CC - In the Matter of the extension of the corporate life of the Birmingham Drainage District - A judgment was rendered by the Honorable James Welsh. A hearing was held on 12/17/2004 on the petition of the supervisors of the Birmingham Drainage District for an extension of the corporate existence of the drainage district until 2/16/2085. The court overruled all objections to the extension of the corporate existence of the drainage district, and found that the corporate existence of the drainage district should be extended in order to meet existing obligations under a lease which expires 2/26/2085.
The audit report also makes reference to a court action in which this taxpayer was involved Kansas City v. James Bynum et al. The audit report writer appears to be misinformed as to the nature of the court action which only recognized that the Birmingham Drainage district was the owner of record for the land taken in 1916 to build the levee.
we note the Clay County Circuit Court has on several occasions recognized the legal and ongoing existence of the Birmingham Drainage District and the taxpayer was a party in at least one of these actions.
A second court action the audit report appears to refer to is a 1995 Circuit Court Order on readjustment for assessment of benefits for the Birmingham Drainage District. That was a very strange court action brought by individuals and corporations. It appears the lead petitioner mentioned in the case to raise taxes didn't have the acre of land necessary to even vote in a drainage district election.
As I understand, two petitioners who didn't have enough land to vote in drainage district elections were on the Board of Directors for the Village of Birmingham, two petitioners have claimed to be on the Board of Supervisors for the dead Birmingham Drainage District, plus two corporation petitioners have claimed to have representatives on the Page 5 of 6 dead district Board of Supervisors in spite of state statutes which prohibited such corporate representatives from serving in that capacity.. (see Attorney General's Opinion 39-2002)
It is even more interesting to find in the Summary of the Committee Version of the Bill HB 1085 -- DRAINAGE DISTRICTS. The summary states the only witness before the committee was the Birmingham Drainage District who testified to get the prohibition against corporate representatives on a drainage district Board of Supervisors overturned in the legislature.
The documents in the county records confirm:
1 a state constitutional prohibition against a drainage district being formed within the city limits of Kansas City on a petition by landowners."
2 The Birmingham Drainage District Charter expired on Dec. 22, 1963
3 landowners could not organize a new district by attempting to comply with the reorganization statutes then in existence
4 a federal requirement to liquidate the district as a public corporation, pay its debts and return the rest of the money to the taxpayers."
5 the holdings of meeting of property owners within the district, the election of officers, the levying and collection of levee district taxes and the expenditure of monies derived therefrom was without legal authority
6 someone acting without legal authority has certified to the county collector the obligation to collect taxes and pay the taxes out of county funds to unknown person or persons.
The audit report also confirms the county must ensure there is legal obligation to collect taxes and that the monies are only paid out for all lawful, true, just and legal accounts, demands and claims of every kind and character.
Clay County Collectors office
Finding #1 - It is our opinion that the Collector must comply with Missouri Revised Statute 242.490 - Levy of maintenance tax--procedure
The maintenance tax shall be apportioned upon the basis of the net assessments of benefits accruing for original construction or subsequently adjusted reassessments, shall not exceed twenty percent thereof in any one year and shall be certified to the collector of the revenue of each county in which lands of the district are situated in the same book in like manner and at the same time as the annual
Page 6 of 6
installment tax is certified, but in a separate column, under the heading "maintenance tax".
Finding # 5 - In our opinion, we believe that Clay County Collector must comply with Missouri Revised Statute 52.275 as shown below.
Drainage and levee tax commissions.
52.275. The county and township collectors for collecting taxes for drainage and levee districts shall collect on behalf of the county and pay into the county general fund the following amounts: in counties of the first class,---
County Auditor Statute
He shall audit the accounts of all officers of the county annually or upon their retirement from office. The auditor shall audit, examine and adjust all accounts, demands, and claims of every kind and character presented for payment against the county, and shall in his discretion approve to the county commission of the county all lawful, true, just and legal accounts, demands and claims of every kind and character payable out of the county revenue or out of any county funds before the same shall be allowed and a warrant issued therefore by the commission.
In Summary
As I understand the audit report, the county intends to continue to collect taxes for a dead drainage district under a false certification with: 1) a state constitutional prohibition against it operating in Kansas City; 2) a federal requirement to liquidate the district as a public corporation, pay its debts and return the rest of the money to the taxpayers; and 3) pay out the monies to some unknown person or persons without legal authority to spend it.
Meanwhile, the Clay County Collector will continue to comply with those statutes that require her to collect maintenance taxes for the district until county officials are informed by a court of law or a vote of the people to do away with the district.