« Ind. Courts - "Three New Counties Join Public Defender Reimbursement Program" | Main | Courts - Wrap-up on "McDonald's sanctioned in strip-search case" »
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Ind. Decisions -- "Court rules Carmel can annex Home Place"
Reporting on yesterday's Court of Appeals opinion in the case of City of Carmel, IN. v. Certain Home Place Annexation Territory Landowners (see ILB summary here), Francesca Jarosz reports today in the Indianapolis Star:
The Indiana Court of Appeals sided Wednesday with Carmel in its efforts to annex Home Place, but a lawyer representing the small community said the two-year battle isn’t over.The court’s ruling puts Home Place closer to losing its attempt to prove that Carmel can’t afford to annex the 1.6-square-mile area of homes and small businesses north of Indianapolis’ border.
Those fighting annexation have a month to decide whether they will appeal the decision to the Indiana Supreme Court. If they don’t, the case would return to the original Hamilton Superior Court judge to decide whether Home Place meets five state-mandated criteria to prevent annexation.
Stephen Buschmann, Home Place’s lawyer, said the community has not decided whether it will appeal. * * *
Under last year’s tax rate, Home Place residents would pay 21 percent more if annexed into Carmel.
About 70 percent of the landowners signed a remonstrance against the annexation in 2005. Dozens have rallied in a group called Concerned Citizens for Home Place, which raised $60,000 through events like potluck dinners to help cover legal fees. * * *
The court’s ruling reversed a 2005 decision by Hamilton Superior Court 3 Judge William Hughes, who ruled that Carmel had not provided substantial evidence that it could afford to annex Home Place.
Carmel’s fiscal analysis showed a shortfall of more than $3.4 million in the first three years of annexation because the added tax revenue from Home Place would not cover the initial cost of expanding city services to the area.
The city said it would cover the deficit with “other net revenue” but did not specify the source of that revenue in the analysis.
The appeals court ruled that, based on documentation of the money available in the city’s operating balance, Carmel proved it could cover the cost. The court used guidance from a June ruling in the Indiana Supreme Court allowing Carmel to annex 8.3 square miles in southwest Clay Township.
Babb said the city felt comfortable that the appeals court would decide in its favor after the southwest Clay ruling.
“This decision reinforced the principal that annexations are local legislative decisions and that judicial review of those will be limited,” Babb said.
If Home Place decided to appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court would have to decide whether to accept the appeal.
If Home Place doesn’t appeal, loses its appeal or has its case rejected, the case could travel back to Hamilton Superior Court. The judge there would review Home Place remonstrators’ case to determine if they meet five criteria, such as whether Home Place has adequate roads and fire and police service without the city, and whether the annexation would have a significant financial impact on the area.
If Home Place proves these criteria, the court would ban Carmel from annexing the area.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 18, 2007 06:47 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions