« Ind. Law - More on proposal to limit procreation assistance | Main | Ind. Gov't. - AG suing Gary Urban Enterprise Association to recover assets »
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Ind. Decisions - More on "Trial court rules against Carmel annexation of Home Place"
The Indianapolis Star today has expanded coverage of its web story yesterday (see ILB entry here) on the trial court ruling against Carmel's annexation of Homeplace. Some quotes from the story by Bill Ruthhart:
Two miles north of Home Place, in his office overlooking the fountains of Carmel's Civic Square, Mayor Jim Brainard and his allies weren't conceding defeat -- only shock at Tuesday morning's ruling by Judge William Hughes and a promise to appeal.They dismissed the contention at the heart of Hughes' decision -- that Carmel, one of Indiana's most affluent cities, had failed to demonstrate that it could afford to provide services in the 1.6 square miles of Home Place. * * *
If the decision is not overturned on appeal, state law requires Carmel to wait four years before trying to annex Home Place again.
Carmel's City Council triggered the fight last November by approving Brainard's plan to annex Home Place, an unincorporated community of tract homes and small businesses centered at 106th Street and College Avenue. * * *
Both Brainard and Sharp disputed the reasoning behind Judge Hughes' decision, which said the city didn't provide enough evidence on how it would pay for new services in Home Place. According to Carmel's annexation plan and court documents, the city would lose more than $3.4 million in the first three years after annexing Home Place. Court documents indicate the city planned to cover the annexation shortfalls with "other available net revenues."
That apparently wasn't specific enough for Hughes, who wrote in his ruling that the court did not have "complete information about Carmel's plans for annexing Home Place." In his written decision, the Hamilton County judge said Carmel did not call the city's clerk-treasurer or any other city officials to testify and did not provide a copy of the city's financial records -- instead leaving the court to rely only on the word of Curtis Coonrod, the city's hired accountant.
Brainard countered that state law only requires Carmel to provide an annexation fiscal report in court. That report documents how much the annexation will cost and what the city plans to spend. "Our position on appeal is that we met the requirements of the law," Brainard said.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 5, 2005 07:56 AM
Posted to Ind. Trial Ct. Decisions