Appeals filed last month have put on hold services Hot Springs expected to extend to the 621 acres known as Enclave Study Area B by the end of the month.
Area B property owners who sued the city have petitioned the state Supreme Court to review the state Court of Appeals ruling upholding the Garland County Circuit Court's January 2017 dismissal of their lawsuit challenging the city's annexation of the area that includes Lake Hamilton and Lakeland drives and Buena Vista Road. The plaintiffs have also petitioned the Appeals Court to rehear their case.
Both petitions were filed on the final day to appeal, or 18 days after the Court of Appeals' March 14 majority opinion decreed the area had been duly annexed under a statute that passed constitutional muster. The Hot Springs Board of Directors annexed the more than 1,200 addresses in January 2016 under the authority of a 2015 law that expanded 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 can be annexed by a majority vote of a municipality's governing body. The board voted 5-1 to annex the area, with former Mayor Ruth Carney voting against the ordinance.
City Attorney Brian Albright said Tuesday that it's unclear how the petitions will affect the city's timeline for enacting the annexation, explaining that it depends on the caseloads and schedules of the two courts. The area was originally scheduled to come under city authority in April 2016.
The city said last month that services, including police and fire protection, will be extended within 30 days of the litigation reaching a final resolution, but enforcement of the city's property maintenance code won't take effect for two years.
"We're still in abeyance as far as going forward with the annexation and providing services until such time as there is a final ruling from the Court of Appeals and Arkansas Supreme Court," Albright said. "We expect a ruling very shortly. The Supreme Court can decline the request, or it can review it and issue its own opinion consistent with the Pritchett case."
District 1 Appeals Judge Raymond R. Abramson's opinion cited the Supreme Court's March 2017 majority opinion affirming the circuit court dismissal of George Pritchett's lawsuit against the annexation. Justice Rhonda K. Wood, author of the majority opinion, decreed that residents of annexed lands don't have a constitutional right to vote on annexation.
Abramson deferred to the high court when weighing in on the constitutionality of the enabling statute.
"The geographic area is the same; the annexation is the same; the law is the same; and the claim of unconstitutionality is the same," he wrote. "Because this argument has been decided by our Supreme Court, we can dispose of this point quickly."
The petitions filed last month said the Supreme Court didn't address claims that the enabling statute restricted the plaintiffs' right to representation and referendum.
"These issues were not argued and therefore were not ruled upon in Pritchett," the petitions said. "Therefore, the opinion's holding that the appellants' constitutional arguments were already decided in Pritchett is in error."
Local on 04/11/2018