Homeplace decision overruled by appeals court

The long-awaited Homeplace vs. Carmel decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals was handed down today. Again, the appeals court overruled Judge Hughes’ decision and will allow the City of Carmel to annex about 2,200 homeowners in Homeplace.

Link to decision

Homeplace won the initial decision because they were able to show that the Carmel fiscal plans “failed to sufficiently and specifically set forth the methods of financing the planned services to be provided to Home Place following annexation.”

Indiana Appeals judges Barnes and Riley wrote that “in assessing a municipality’s ordinance and plan, a court should keep in mind that annexation is a legislative function.” They went on to cite that “a trial court hearing a remonstrance is not an examiner conducting an audit of a challenged fiscal plan. Rather, it should focus on whether that plan represents a credible commitment by the municipality to provide the annexed area with comparable capital and non-capital services.”

The appellate court found that the fiscal plans submitted by Carmel were “credible” and “enforceable” commitments to the Homeplace residents.

They did mention the Southwest Clay vs. Carmel Supreme Court decision; another case that was overturned in Hamilton County earlier this year. While the cases were “difficult to compare”, they did note that in both cases, the fiscal plans met the state requirements for annexation.

What does this mean to the Fishers vs. Geist annexation bid?

Contrary to what you’ll be told in the press and the Town of Fishers, not a lot. Yes, another overruled decision in annexation. Yes, the “bad guys” won again. But as we’ve said all along, each annexation case is different and the circumstances are much different.

According to Indiana Code 36-4-3-13 (a-d), Fishers has to prove that Geist is contiguous to Fishers, that they need the area to “grow”, it’s zoned, and they have to provide a fiscal plan to the homeowners outlining what they plan to do with their tax money (this is paraphrased of course).

Homeplace argued and won on Carmel’s fiscal plan (section d). The Indiana Appellate Court ruled that it wasn’t their place to be “accountants” over fiscal plans, but to judge whether or not they can perform the promises they have outlined. 

Bottom line, it will be tough to argue Fishers’ fiscal plans in court; both Homeplace and in some respects Southwest Clay lost on these “section d” fights.

The “roadmap” for remonstrance fights goes both ways.

At the conclusion of Indiana Code 36-4-3-13 is section (e). This section outlines to judges the conditions, which if all are present, would overturn an annexation bid by Fishers. Remember, section (e) is irrelevant if Geist doesn’t get their 65% of homeowners to sign a remonstrance petition.

Besides proving that the annexation will “have a significant financial impact” (e-2-b) and it’s not in the “best interests of the owners” (e-2-c), Fishers has to be providing all of the following municipal services to Geist: Fire and police protection (e-2-a-i) and streets and road maintenance (e-2-a-ii).

Geist is already patrolled by Hamilton County Sherriffs and private security, Geist Patrol. Roads are already maintained by Hamilton County as well. But the issue of fire protection will be at issue on a couple fronts.

First, Fall Creek Township contracts with Fishers for fire protection, much the same way Carmel provides fire protection to Homeplace (which wasn’t challenged by Carmel in their appeal). Secondly, Geist has a letter of intent from the Castleton Volunteer Fire Department which is in the Lawrence Township Fire District to provide fire protection for Geist.

If Geist was hinging their entire remonstration defense on Fishers’ fiscal plans, they should be worried right now. Fortunately, Geist has never relied on what Fishers says they will do, but rather is focusing on what they are doing for themselves already.

Incorporation can and should occur before the Geist vs. Fishers case ever gets to the courts so this issue could be mute. However, if Geist doesn’t get their 65% remonstrance early next year, Fishers could quite possibly annex Geist without a court ever hearing their case.