Annexation opponents submit petitions
Opponents of the city’s effort to absorb two lake-adjacent areas submitted more than 3,000 signatures Thursday in support of petitions to refer the enabling city legislation to voters.
The submission followed Wednesday’s
filing of a lawsuit seeking a stay on the city’s annexation of Enclave Study Area C that includes Grand Point and Bayshore drives and Enclave Study Area D between Lake Hamilton and Weston Road. It’s the fifth lawsuit filed in the last year challenging the city’s authority to annex land between its corporate limits and Lake Hamilton.
Thursday marked the conclusion of the 30-day period state law allows to challenge an annexation ordinance in court and the 30-day period the city allows to file a petition for a referendum on a city ordinance.
A coalition styled as Concerned Citizens presented Assistant City Manager/City Clerk Lance Spicer with 1,603 signatures in support of a referendum on the Area C ordinance, and 1,601 signatures for a referendum on the Area D ordinance.
According to the city clerk’s office, a petition needs 1,425 signatures from registered city voters, or 15 percent of the 9,500 votes cast in the 2014 mayoral race, to refer an ordinance to voters.
Spicer said he’ll begin processing the signatures today or Monday, taking the copies he made Thursday to the county clerk’s office to check them against the voting rolls. He’ll inform the petition sponsor if its submission meets the threshold after he determines how many signatures and accompanying addresses correspond to city residents who are registered to vote. If the submission falls short, the sponsor will have 10 days to get more signatures.
The Hot Springs Board of Directors adopted both annexation ordinances Dec. 20. Opponents have said were timed to bring the areas under city control before the 91st General Assembly could consider House Bill 1018 that Rep. Bruce Cozart, R-District 24, filed in November. It would make enclave annexations subject to an election of city voters and voters in the affected area, the same mechanism required to bring adjacent unincorporated lands under city authority.
Property owners who own more than half of an unincorporated area’s acreage can also petition the county judge for a voluntary annexation.
Enclaves, areas surrounded by corporate limits, can be annexed by a majority vote of the city board, which adopted four such annexation ordinances in the last 13 months under the authority of Act 109 of 2015. It expanded enclaves to include areas bound by corporate limits on three sides and a lake or a river on a fourth.
“This is what happens when you have a governing body that refuses to listen to their constituents and do not care what the public thinks of their actions,” a Concerned Citizens news release said. “Apparently their only motivation is to callously pursue their own selfish personal agendas while disallowing the public a voice or a vote on items that directly impact their lives.”
Local attorney Cliff Jackson, an Area D resident and petition drive organizer, noted that Area C and D residents wouldn’t get to vote in an annexation election if the city certifies the two petitions.
“Even if we’re successful in getting a vote on this, we can’t vote on it,” Jackson said during a news conference the group held in the lobby of City Hall. “Only city folks will determine whether they want us, and we’re begging you city folks to reject us.”
A lawsuit filed in February against the ordinance annexing Enclave Study Area B that includes Lakeland Drive, Lake Hamilton Drive and Buena Vista Road claimed the city board’s action disenfranchised Area B residents. Division 1 Circuit Court Judge John Homer Wright dismissed the claim in May, ruling that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to vote on annexation. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal that’s yet to be heard. Wright dismissed another lawsuit last week that challenged the city’s execution of Act 109, ruling that the annexation complied with the statutory requirements.
Those lawsuits combined with a request for a writ of mandamus requiring the city to verify signatures submitted in February for a referendum on Area B have held up the area’s annexation, which was scheduled to commence last April. Plaintiff George Pritchett filed an appeal after his writ of mandamus request was dismissed in May.
The same plaintiffs who filed Wednesday’s stay request petitioned the court for a temporary injunction order last month to prevent the city board from voting on the Area C and D ordinances until HB 1018 goes before the Legislature. Wednesday’s filing called the ordinances “land grabs” that would stretch already strained city services.
Enclave Study Area A in the Burchwood Bay and Twin Points roads area the city board annexed through the adoption of an ordinance in December 2015 is the only one of the four annexed areas that’s currently part of the city. Areas C and D are scheduled to attach in April.
Jackson told The Sentinel-Record Wednesday that the Garland County Democratic Party Committee was coordinating with the Concerned Citizens group, but the committee said Thursday that it was not part of the C and D petition drives.
“While the Democratic Party of Garland County is sympathetic to all concerns of both city and county residents, the party is not affiliated with this petition and has not taken an official position on this issue,” the committee said.