HOT SPRINGS -- The state Court of Appeals has cleared the way for Hot Springs to execute the January 2016 ordinance that called for the annexation of 621 acres between the corporate limits and Lake Hamilton.
The court affirmed Circuit Judge John Homer Wright's January 2017 dismissal of a lawsuit filed by property owners in the tract known as Enclave Study Area B. City Attorney Brian Albright said the plaintiffs have 18 days from the March 14 filing of the majority opinion to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk Lance Spicer said Tuesday city services will be extended to the area within 30 days of the city receiving notice that no appeal has been filed. In addition to police and fire protection, the area -- which includes Lake Hamilton and Lakeland Drives and Buena Vista Road -- also will be subject to city code regulations and resident utility rates.
City residents aren't assessed the 50 percent premium paid by water and sewer customers outside the city.
"The city will be thoughtful and patient in working with residents as they adjust to the new services and applicable ordinances and regulations," City Manager David Frasher said.
Spicer said Suburban Sanitation Inc. will continue residential trash collection in the area. Garland County entered into a five-year contract, with the option for a one-year renewal, with the solid waste hauler in January 2015. It also serves the Twin Points Road and Burchwood Bay Road area the city annexed in 2016.
Spicer said the city assumed responsibility for Suburban's contract in that area and is likely to do the same in Area B. The county has said it could be left in a lurch if annexation adversely affected the customer base of contract haulers. The resulting lost revenue could force the county to withdraw from its contractual obligations, making the county responsible for garbage collection in the affected sanitation zones.
The county's contract with its haulers includes a provision that allows them to continue servicing annexed areas for the duration of their contracts.
"We don't want to do anything detrimental to the private haulers, and it does take a good bit of time and resources to take on those accounts with city personnel," Spicer said.
Skip Houston, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the annexation disenfranchised residents. The Hot Springs Board of Directors adopted the enabling ordinance under the statutory provision that broadened enclaves to include land bound by corporate limits on three sides and a lake or a river on a fourth.
Enclaves are areas surrounded by cities that the Legislature has empowered municipalities to annex by a majority vote of their governing bodies.
"We're obviously disappointed in this ruling since we feel there were several ways in which the city cut corners in their push to forcibly annex Enclave B," Houston said in an emailed statement. "Most troubling is that the residents of Enclave B continue to be denied a vote in a decision that has a major effect on their property and their use and enjoyment of it."
The majority opinion written by District 1 Appeals Judge Raymond R. Abramson cited the state Supreme Court ruling in an earlier lawsuit filed against the annexation ordinance. The high court held that residents in an affected area don't have a constitutionally protected right to vote on annexation, allowing the expanded enclave statute to be enacted without the state providing a compelling interest in doing so.
Because justices found no fundamental rights to be at stake, they decreed the lowest level of judicial review be applied to the statute.
State Desk on 03/21/2018