Attorney General Opinion No.
Background
- Shawnee County seeks to use home rule to exempt from motor fuel tax apportionment so that funds allocated to cities in Shawnee County are diverted to the county.
- The motor fuel tax funds are collected by the state and distributed to counties and cities under K.S.A. 79-3425c with Shawnee (and Sedgwick) receiving a 50%/split to the county road fund and remainder to cities.
- The Shawnee County charter resolution attempts to exempt it from K.S.A. 79-3425c(b)(1), directing all funds to the county road and bridge fund.
- The motor fuel tax scheme is a state program; distributions are made by the state and then allocated by county treasurers per statute.
- The court analyzes whether this dispute implicates local county business under K.S.A. 19-101a and whether the county may control funds directed to cities.
- The court concludes that the allocation of motor fuel funds affects municipalities other than the county and is not a permissible exercise of county home rule to divert funds to the county.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the proposed exemption from 79-3425c(b)(1) authorized as county business under 19-101a? | Shawnee County argues home rule allows nonuniform statutes to be bypassed. | State argues the issue concerns state funds and is not local county business. | No; not county business; charter resolution invalid. |
| Does motor fuel tax distribution constitute local matters for home rule purposes? | Shawnee County argues distribution affects only local affairs. | State contends the distribution involves state-wide program with local impact. | Motor fuel fund distribution affects multiple jurisdictions and is not purely local. |
| Who controls motor fuel funds under the statute and case law? | County seeks broader control via charter resolution. | County treasurer retains statutory control over funds; commission has no entitlement. | County treasurer controls funds until statutory credits are made; commission has no unilateral right. |
Key Cases Cited
- Von Ruden v. Miller, 231 Kan. 1 (1982) (local vs statewide concerns; intangible tax analysis analogized to local affairs)
- Weber v. Board of County Com'rs of Marshall County, 289 Kan. 1166 (2009) (treasurer funds vs commission control; state duties preserved)
- School Dist. No. 12 of Ottawa County v. Board of Com'rs of Ottawa County, 133 Kan. 528 (1931) (local vs statewide scope; county authority limited by statute)
- School District No. 2 v. Ellis County Comm'rs, 138 Kan. 274 (1933) (cannot withhold funds from other taxing districts; local vs statewide limitation)
- Cogswell v. Sherman County, 238 Kan. 438 (1985) (constitutionally constrained to local affairs; uniform applicability not dispositive)
- Osborne County v. City of Osborne, 104 Kan. 674 (1919) (early recognition of county vs state control in local funds)