The city of Blytheville filed an answer and countersuit against Mississippi County over the jail fees issue Tuesday in Mississippi County Circuit Court.
The 34-page counterclaim requests a declaratory judgment on the definition of "municipal prisoners" and argues the county is overcharging the city for jail fees.
The two sides differ on the term's meaning, with Blytheville claiming the county should only charge for city ordinance violators, and the county contending it has authority to invoice for any misdemeanor prisoner.
"Mississippi County charges the City of Blytheville for two types of prisoners: 1) individuals incarcerated for violation of municipal ordinances, and 2) individuals arrested by municipal officers for violation of state laws both misdemeanors felonies," the city's countersuit reads.
The suit says the city doesn't owe fees for violators of state law.
Mississippi County disagrees.
Last month, the county filed its lawsuit, trying to collect on alleged jail fees from Feb. 1, 2013, to Dec. 31, 2013.
The suit says the city owes for 5,507 inmate days over that time, at a rate of either $50 or $55 per inmate, per day. Under the $50 rate, the jail fee debt would be $275,350; at $55, it would be $305,090, in addition to amounts owing for subsequent months.
"The County's practice of charging a daily rate of either $50 or $55 per prisoner per day to the City of Blytheville and possibly other cities, while charging the State of Arkansas $28 per prisoner per day is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, conscience shocking, without any basis, and in violation of the city's right to due process and equal protection under the Arkansas Constitution," the city's answer reads.
The city's countersuit says the only state statute concerning the issue is 12-41-506, which reads: "When a person is sentenced to a county jail for violating a municipal ordinance, the municipality shall be responsible for paying the fee established by an agreement or ordinance of the quorum court in the county."
The county notes that Circuit Court has already opined on the municipal prisoner definition.
In 2004, Judge David Laser's order said: "Prisoners of municipalities shall include persons housed in the county jail by virtue of a pending misdemeanor charge that is pending on a city docket or a municipal docket of any court, whereby the fine revenue that would be owed by the prisoner, if convicted, would be paid to the city or the municipality and not to the county."
The city's countersuit says that order was a settlement agreement between the two parties "and clearly related to prior contracts."
"Further, it was clearly stated in the settlement agreement that the parties would negotiate the terms of future contracts."
The previous lawsuit was confined to contracts between the two sides for the periods of Nov. 1, 2003, through Dec. 31, 2005, and all necessary parties were not joined as required by law, the countersuit continues.
"The city of Blytheville is responsible for ensuring appropriate use of public funds, which includes verifying that it is not paying Mississippi County fees which it does not legally owe," the countersuit reads. "In the interest of justice, the city of Blytheville seeks clarification of the definition of 'municipal prisoner' and an injunction against Mississippi County to prevent it from overcharging the city and the proposed Involuntary Plaintiffs (for which a motion for joinder will be filed in the next 50 days) for incarceration of municipal prisoners."
Last year, the two sides settled a suit brought by the county over unpaid 2011-12 jail fees, which the city was contractually obligated to pay. Blytheville is making monthly payments on the debt.
"Before filing this Complaint, Mississippi County has initiated efforts to resolve the issue presented in this action, but the defendant has resisted those efforts," the county's suit says. "Defendant continues to disregard the severe negative impact that its refusal to pay its obligations has on the county's ability to provide services to all of the citizens of Mississippi County."
The suit adds: "(the) Defendant is willfully and deliberately, and without legal justification, disobeying the law of this state, thus necessitating this action."
mbrasfield@blythevillecourier.com