## Facts

- Cape Girardeau is a constitutional charter city under Mo. Const. art. VI, § 19(a).
- A city-university-business advisory committee proposed a $12.9 million multi-use center jointly financed by the City ($5 million via general obligation bonds) and Southeast Missouri State University (SEMO) ($7.9 million via state appropriations).
- City voters approved the bond proposition for the project.
- The City Council enacted Ordinance 101 imposing a gross-receipts license tax: 3% on hotel/motel sleeping accommodations and 1% on restaurant food sales, with revenues dedicated to retiring bonds and supporting conventions, tourism, and economic development; voters later approved the tax.
- The City and SEMO executed a Multi-Use Center Agreement providing joint design and construction, cost sharing (5/13 City; 8/13 SEMO), SEMO ownership of the site and building, joint governance by a six-member board (three City, three SEMO), and SEMO responsibility for operations and maintenance.
- The City enacted Ordinance 174 authorizing the agreement and Ordinance 190 authorizing issuance of general obligation bonds and a property tax to retire them.
- Local hotels, motels, and restaurants challenged the agreement and ordinances, arguing the City lacked authority, relying primarily on Mo. Rev. Stat. § 70.220 (authorizing cooperative contracts “with any other municipality”).

## Issues

1. Whether a constitutional charter city has home-rule authority to enter into a cooperative agreement with a state university to finance, construct, and operate a public facility.
2. Whether Mo. Rev. Stat. § 70.220 implicitly limits cooperative arrangements to those between “municipalities,” thereby restricting a charter city from contracting with a non-municipal public entity such as SEMO.
3. Whether the Multi-Use Center Agreement and Ordinances 174, 190, and the challenged portion of Ordinance 101 were ultra vires, unconstitutional, illegal, or unenforceable on the asserted grounds.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri (en banc) reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for the plaintiffs and remanded.
- The court held the City possessed independent home-rule authority under Mo. Const. art. VI, § 19(a) to enter the agreement with SEMO and to issue bonds and levy taxes for the project, subject to constitutional limits.
- The court held § 70.220 did not restrict a charter city’s constitutional powers and did not invalidate the City’s agreement with SEMO.
- The challenged agreement and ordinances were within the City’s lawful powers and were not invalid on the grounds asserted.

## Legal Principles

- A constitutional charter city has all powers the state legislature could confer upon any city, unless limited by the constitution, the city’s charter, or a controlling statute.
- Enabling statutes granting authority to non-charter municipalities do not ordinarily operate as implied restrictions on constitutionally conferred home-rule powers.
- A state statute preempts conflicting local law only when it operates as a limitation applicable to the charter city and addresses a matter controlling over the local enactment; a permissive grant is not treated as an exclusive list of authorized actions.
- Cooperative action with a non-municipal public entity may fall within municipal authority when it serves a legitimate municipal/public purpose, including convention, tourism, and economic development objectives tied to voter-approved financing.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the City’s authority, as a constitutional charter city, to partner with SEMO on the multi-use center and to finance the project through voter-approved bonds and related taxes, rejecting the claim that § 70.220 limited such cooperation to contracts solely between municipalities.


Cape Motor Lodge, Inc. v. City of Cape Girardeau, 706 S.W.2d 208 (Mo. 1986) (en banc)