Published: August 29, 2008 12:08 pm            

Jeffersonville annexation faces more appeals

Nearly a week after the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed a decision by the Clark Circuit Court to dismiss a remonstrance against Jeffersonville’s recent annexation, the lead plaintiff said he still plans to appeal.

“We’re going to keep going until we run out of appeals,” said Bruce Herdt, a Jeffersonville business owner whose led the remonstrance.

The protest relates to a 2007 annexation by the Jeffersonville City Council, which — according to the fiscal plan that passed with it — took in 7,806 acres of land and an estimated 3,360 households north and east of the old city limits. Herdt and others dispute the number of households.

The annexation was done in six tracts, four of which were made final earlier this year. Two areas — known legally as area B and area E — were protested.

Last week, the Court of Appeals affirmed former Clark Circuit Court Judge Daniel F. Donahue’s decision to dismiss the case. That dismissal came on a motion from the city, which argued that petitioners did not file the needed materials on time.

State law gives those wishing to remonstrate against an annexation 90 days in which to make a legal filing.

The attorney representing those remonstrating in area B — locally called the Oak Park Conservancy District — filed paperwork on the 90th day of the period. However, signatures of those protesting the annexation were not filed until days later as an amendment to the original complaint.

Signatures of 65 percent of those affected by the annexation have to be included with the legal complaint, under state statute.

The attorney representing those remonstrating argued that the amendment containing the signatures related back to the original filing. The trial court and the appeals court did not agree.

Larry Wilder — an attorney who has represented the city on the annexation — said the plaintiffs now have two options: Petition the court of appeals to reconsider, or ask the Indiana Supreme Court to hear the case.

Remonstrators have until mid-September before a 30-day window on appealing the decision closes.

Herdt and others base their argument on what they believe are flaws in the fiscal part of the plan.

“If we ever get in front of a court, we’re going to show that the city’s (fiscal) plan underestimated the population by 40 percent.”

He contends that the number of households in the annexation area is closer to 5,200, rather than the 3,660 included in the fiscal plan.

He believes that services to the area would decline as a result of the annexation.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.