HERMANN — After an hour’s worth of sometimes pointed exchanges Thursday morning, Gasconade County administrators and Hermann city officials remained at odds on the potential amount of money the county seat community would receive from a countywide law enforcement sales tax on the April 5 ballot.

“We did bring the entourage, but we do come in peace,” said City Administrator Patricia Heaney, in laying the groundwork for the city’s argument that it should receive more of the half-cent sales tax revenue than would it would under the planned 75 percent-25 percent split of the estimate $1 million between the county and five of counties six municipalities.

Indeed, there was an entourage.

Heaney was backed by Mayor Bruce Cox, Aldermen Dave Faerber and Derek LeRoy, Police Chief Marlon Walker and City Attorney David Politte. Just how long the peace that Heaney spoke of lasted is open for debate; the tension between the city and county was evident from the outset.

The bottom line of the meeting held as part of the County Commission’s regular weekly session was that both sides remained where they were when the discussion began: County government unable to promise Hermann a larger share of the cities’ portion of the tax and unable to guarantee the community’s portion would not be reduced in coming years and City Hall not willing to support the countywide sales tax without a change in the county-municipal split and a guarantee of not reducing the amount of revenue through the appropriations process.

“You’re asking for something we can’t give,” said Presiding Commissioner Larry Miskel, R-Hermann, referring to a long-term guaranteed funding level.

Heaney said the latest version of a law enforcement sales tax advocated by Sheriff Scott Eiler and placed on the April 5 General Municipal Elections ballot raises several concerns within City Hall and carries what she called an “unintended consequence.” A provision of the proposal is that if a city receives a portion of the revenue and later the city’s voters approve a city sales tax for law enforcement, it would lose its portion of the county sales tax. The proposal, she said, “put the city in this precarious position” because, she added, if voters approve the countywide law enforcement tax, it’s not likely that city voters later would adopt a municipal tax for law enforcement.

The city administrator said Hermann would prefer a 60-40 split, which she said would better represent the residential divide between those living in unincorporated portions of Gasconade County and those living in the six incorporated municipalities. And, she noted, while the proposed 75-25 split would give Hermann about 9 percent of the sales tax revenue, a 60-40 split would give the county seat community 15 percent of the money.

“We feel like that’s fair,” Heaney said.

As written, the proposal, she said, “is limiting us to this funding level and this funding source for years to come.”

Further, Heaney argued that because the sales tax — like all other countywide revenue — it is subject to the annual appropriations process. “It’s a little scary because we’re in the hands of the County Commission,” she said, voicing concern that the amount received by the city could fluctuate. She said city officials see that as being “handcuffed to this agreement.”

Miskel reminded the city officials that, just as in the case of city government funding it services, the law enforcement money will be allocated yearly through the budget process and while this set of county administrators might want to provide a guaranteed funding level, it can’t do that because it can’t tie the hands of a future County Commission. The Commission can change every two years while a city’s Board of Aldermen can change every year if a new member is elected.

Heaney also said City Hall is concerned that the money would be made available only if a inter-agency agreement is signed with the county and that city officials have no idea what will be in the agreement. Seeing the agreement beforehand might make it easier for city government to support the proposed tax, she said.

“From the city’s perspective, being required to sign an agreement that we’ve never seen, in order to get the money, is a little daunting,” the city administrator said.

County Clerk Lesa Lietzow confirmed that receiving the money is contingent on signing an agreement, as outlined by the county’s consulting attorney. “If there’s not an agreement signed, there’s no money released,” she said, adding that the portion of funds that would go to a city not signing an agreement would be returned to the 75-percent portion dedicated to the Gasconade County Sheriff’s Department.

“And that’s the ‘handcuffing’ I’m speaking about,” Heaney said.

Miskel, a former mayor of Hermann, and Heaney briefly exchanged pointed comments when Heaney kept mentioning the agreement. The presiding commissioner said Heaney told him early on in the sales tax discussion that the city would not support the tax; so, he asked, what does it matter what’s in the agreement?

“We’re at an impasse,” said Miskel.

Northern District Commissioner Jim Holland, R-Hermann, said perhaps some of the concerns Heaney was outlining should have been discussed in detail at the beginning of the process.

“Where were you two months ago?” he asked.

Alderman Dave Faerber echoed Heaney’s comment that what the city sees as a correctly crafted proposal be put before the voters. “If this isn’t done right now, it’s screwed up forever. It’s got to be right for our people, too,” the alderman said.

Miskel countered Heaney’s argument that the proposed division of funds would not be “fair.”

“What does the word ‘fair’ mean?” the presiding commissioner asked. “That’s subject to interpretation,” he said.

As for the outcome of the ballot issue, Miskel said, “If this doesn’t pass, we all lose.”