York v. Town of Carmel
| Decision Date | 24 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 2--874A189,2--874A189 |
| Citation | 166 Ind.App. 672,337 N.E.2d 511 |
| Parties | Jerry H. YORK et al., Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. The TOWN OF CARMEL, Indiana, Appellee (Defendant below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Smith, Pearce & Barr, Paul G. Smith, Noblesville, for appellees.
Plaintiff-Appellants Jerry H. York and other land owners (Remonstrators) appeal from the trial court's denial of their Remonstrance to the annexation of certain real estate by the Defendant-Appellee Town of Carmel, Indiana (Carmel), claiming that Carmel failed to develop a fiscal plan and establish a definite policy to furnish the annexed territory, within 3 years, governmental and proprietary services substantially equivalent to those provided within Carmel, as required by I.C.1971, 18--5--10--32 (Burns Code Ed.).
We reverse.
Careful scrutiny of the record reveals these facts and pertinent evidence:
On August 8, 1972, the Board of Trustees of Carmel (the Board) passed ten (10) annexation ordinances including C--36 and C--37, the area in question.
Ordinance C--37 annexed approximately 64 acres; while C--36 annexed approximately 219 acres, of which a Mr. Joseph Dawson owned approximately 145 acres, which he was developing (hereinafter the Dawson Subdivision).
Prior to the adoption of these ordinances, the Board discussed, prepared, and reduced to writing the annual budget for the fiscal year 1973. Although there was no specific financial projection for C--36 and C--37 as such, the 1973 budget did anticipate the needs and growth of both Carmel and the territories proposed to be annexed . . . as illustrated by a comparison of Carmel's 1972 and 1973 total budget:
Total Budgets
-------------
Plan
General Acct. Comm. Police Fire Streets
------------- ------- -------- ----------- --------
1972 $ 91,780.00 $46,150 $138,955 $162,540 $ 78,127
1973 $127,550.00 $69,520 $172,444 $205,579.91 $151,400
As of August 8, 1972, Carmel could have provided to C--36 and C--37 both fire and police protection equal to that provided to Carmel.
Carmel did not, however, have any plan concerning the streets within C--36 and C--37 other than ordinary maintenance of those streets already existing on August 8, 1972.
Carmel's Town Engineers, Fred Hohl and Fred Swift, testified that Carmel did have plans for extension of sewer and water facilities to C--36 and C--37. Funding for such services would be from (a) federal Fred Swift stated that 'we asked our engineer which areas we could serve with our service and we only annexed the areas we were assured by the experts that we could serve within 3 years.'
funds, (b) state funds, (c) a local bond issue, and (d) Mr. Dawson.
However, these same engineers further testified that these extension plans for water and sewer service included only the Dawson Subdivision, about 1/2 of the total area annexed by C--36 and C--37.
Thus Carmel's 'plan' to provide sewers and water services to those persons residing outside the Dawson Subdivision left them in the position of 'hooking up' at their own expense to the main sewage and water lines of the Dawson Subdivision . . . an expense that varied depending upon the needs of the persons desiring such services and the distance to the Dawson Subdivision.
Fred Hohl testified concerning Carmel's 'plan' of making available, within 3 years, sewer and water services to those persons residing outside the Dawson Subdivision, but within the annexed areas:
'Q Your definition of availability is rather limited. It says that the water is there if the people have enough money to go far enough to get onto it.
A That is correct, sir.
Q In some cases we would be talking of Thousands of Dollars.
A That is correct.
Q If this area were annexed is it then mandatory upon the Town of Carmel or does the Town of Carmel have any plans to extend water and sewers to the property line of any of these people?
A No, sir, only incidentally, in other words, there will be some of the properties, and unless you want to sit down and look at each house by house only speaking in generalities, some of the property will have water and in some cases sewer very close to them, perhaps in their front, right in front of their house.
Q If they are close to the town, right?
A Right, or any other extension.
Q They can get on rather inexpensively?
A That's right.
Q But if they are not close to the line, if they come into the Town of Carmel, it's going to be up to them to run the service to get to this line.
A That's right. That's how everyone else has got their water.
Q And there is no plan for those people other than that plan?
A We don't. No.
Q If I lived six blocks from Dawson's line and I wanted his water, if I were in Carmel and I wanted your water or wanted your sewer, I would have to run my own line those six blocks.
A In those cases, you would.
Q And the same would apply to the 37?
A Yes, sir.
Q When the people talk to you about availability, that is the availability to which you are referring?
A Yes, sir, you do consider the availability of the sewer more in terms of the proximity of the major interceptors and, granted several blocks is quite a distance, well, it's better than five miles to the sewer plant.
Q Would you give the Court some idea what it runs a foot to run A Depend on the size of the line. Assuming an eight inch sewer which you're going to extend, somewhere between eight, twelve dollars a foot, depending upon conditions.
these lines to the town sewer? Say I wanted to run it five blocks, give the Court some idea what it would cost me per foot
Q How many feet in a block?
A About 528 feet, we'd say.
Q 528 feet. Let's say about five blocks, little over 2600 feet, how much per foot?
A Use Ten Dollars for a round number.
Q That's Twenty-six Thousand Dollars, and that's the Town of Carmel's definition of availability?
A Yes, sir.
At least two property owners within the annexed area (Jerry York, who owned 37 acres, and Glen Thebert, who owned 15 acres), were located at least 1 mile from the Dawson Subdivision.
One alternative to minimize this overwhelming expense, according to another engineer for Carmel, Neil Schmeltekop (also Carmel's Clerk-Treasurer in 1972), would be to subdivide one's land so as to recoup such costs. Yet Fred Hohl admitted that because of the problem of water and sewage capacity, existing at the time of trial, 'a guy like York with his 38-acres' would not be able to develop his property until proposed new treatment facilities were completed.
Following the passing of ordinances C--36 and C--37, the Remonstrators filed a Remonstrance on October 13, 1972, requesting the annexation be set aside. The trial court entered judgment denying the Remonstrance, and Remonstrators' appeal.
The narrow issue for disposition is:
Did Carmel comply with I.C.1971 18--5--10--32(c) by developing a fiscal plan and establishing a definite policy to furnish the annexed territory within 3 years governmental and proprietary services substantially equivalent to those furnished within Carmel?
The Remonstrators contend that the trial court's judgment, that Carmel possessed a fiscal plan and was able to provide comparable governmental and proprietary services to the annexed territory, was contrary to law.
Carmel simply answers that there was 'ample evidence' to support the trial court's judgment.
CONCLUSION--It is our opinion that Carmel failed to comply with I.C.1971, 18--5--10--32(c) because it did not establish a definite policy to furnish within 3 years sewage and water services to the entire annexed territories, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kash v. State
-
Stallard v. Town of St. John, Lake County
...interpretation of IC 1971, 18-5-10-25(c) was applied to the identical language of IC 1971, 18-5-10-32(c) in York et al. v. Town of Carmel (1975), 166 Ind.App. 672, 337 N.E.2d 511. Thus, the trial court's judgment sustaining the annexation by St. John cannot be affirmed if the court erred in......
-
Sedlak v. Town of St. John Lake County
...between the two statutes, this Court later applied the principles announced in Harris to annexations by towns. York v. Town of Carmel, (1975) 166 Ind.App. 672, 337 N.E.2d 511. Not all the questions raised by an interpretation of Ind.Code 18-5-10-32(c) were answered by Harris and York, howev......
-
Whitmer v. Town of North Liberty
...Appellants cite as authority for this proposition Harris v. City of Muncie (1975), Ind.App., 325 N.E.2d 208 and York v. Town of Carmel (1975), Ind.App., 337 N.E.2d 511. In Harris the evidence was completely void of any commitment to a fiscal plan or definite policy to provide the required s......