High court clears way for annexation

Hot Springs to absorb 621 acres despite landowners’ complaints, city board told

HOT SPRINGS — Annexation of 621 acres between the corporate limits and Lake Hamilton’s north shore can finally proceed, allowing the city to absorb the area at the center of a 2-year-old legal controversy, city officials said.

The state Supreme Court issued an order May 24 denying the petition for review filed March 30 by property owners in the territory known as Enclave Study Area B. The decision clears the way for an annexation that was initially scheduled to go into effect April 1, 2016.

The property owners, represented by lead plaintiffs Rex L. Houston Jr., Kelton R. Brown Jr., John G. Homatas and Jim West, sued the city in February 2016, claiming they had been disenfranchised by the statute the Hot Springs Board of Directors used to annex the area, and that the city did not follow procedure prescribed by the state’s annexation code.

City Attorney Brian Albright told board members Tuesday that the court’s decision meant the challenge of the annexation is over.

“The annexation is now final, and we will begin providing services,” Albright said. “Under the law, we have three years, but our schedule will be much sooner than that.”

Lance Spicer, city clerk and assistant city manager, said department heads met Wednesday afternoon to discuss the timetable for extending city services to Area B, which includes about 1,200 address points and, according to the 2010 Census, about 500 permanent residents in the area that comprises Lakeland and Lake Hamilton drives and Buena Vista Road.

“Staff are still expecting the 30-day timeline for most of the services we have direct control over, but there are a few outside partners we will need to coordinate with as well,” Spicer said.

Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court to review the state Court of Appeals ruling that affirmed Division 1 Circuit Judge John Homer Wright’s January 2017 dismissal of their lawsuit. The appeals court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a rehearing last month.

The opinion affirming the lower court ruling deferred to the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in George Pritchett v. City of Hot Springs on the question of disenfranchisement. The high court upheld a lower court’s dismissal of the challenge Pritchett brought against the Area B annexation, with Justice Rhonda K. Wood decreeing the constitution did not entitle Area B residents to vote on the annexation.

The city board annexed the area by ordinance in January 2016 after the Legislature amended the enclave provision of the annexation code during the 2015 regular session. The new language broadened enclaves to include land bound by corporate limits on three sides and a lake or a river on a fourth.

A city can annex an enclave by a majority vote of its governing body.