Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Court voids Crystal River annexation

Jurisdiction of the 520-acre area goes back to the county. The fate of city taxes collected and development permission granted is still unclear.

By RAGHURAM VADAREVU
Published June 17, 2005

CRYSTAL RIVER - In the 13 months that have passed since the City Council decided to annex 520 acres south of the city limits, the question of the annexation's legality hung over the city like a storm cloud.

The rains came Thursday, when news spread that Senior Circuit Judge Richard G. Weinberg declared the annexation invalid. In an 11-page ruling, Weinberg sided with Citrus County government and a property owners group that opposed the annexation.

Weinberg's order calls into question whether the city will have to return at least $140,000 it collected in taxes from property owners in the formerly annexed areas and whether it had jurisdiction when it recently gave permission to a developer to subdivide land in that area.

The impact of Weinberg's order was immediate, handing jurisdiction back to the county.

City Attorney David La Croix advised the city staff that the order meant the city no longer could provide services in the formerly annexed area, which runs along U.S. 19 from the southern city limits down to the area of Home Depot and W Ozello Trail.

Effective Thursday, the Citrus County Sheriff's Office was the primary law enforcement agency in the formerly annexed area, replacing city police who were in that role since the April 2004 annexation, City Manager Phil Deaton said.

The city no longer will provide code enforcement or handle building permits, nor will it continue to provide trash pickup for property owners after their current billing cycles conclude, Deaton said. They will then have to contract with their own trash haulers.

Meanwhile, Deaton is trying to schedule a special council meeting so council members can determine their next step, whether it be to ask for a rehearing of the case, file an appeal with the Fifth District Court of Appeal by July 15, or redo the annexation ordinance.

La Croix was clear in what his recommendation would be.

"It's 11 pages of incomprehensible babble," La Croix said of Weinberg's order. "I will absolutely recommend that the city appeal it."

Council member Susan Kirk, who voted against the annexation, wasn't so sure.

"I'm tired of paying court fees and attorney's fees," she said. "I think we need to regroup and figure out where to go from here."

The conflict, which captured attention beyond Citrus, began when RealtiCorp, a South Carolina developer, approached the city with the annexation plan after negotiations for construction of a Wal-Mart Supercenter fell through with county government.

The developer, which owns about 200 acres in the annexed area, and county officials could not agree on how to deal with the wetlands in the area. The county argued that large-scale development planned for the area could hurt the county economically and environmentally.

The city began making moves to annex the RealtiCorp land, along with other land. Business owners affected by the proposed annexation formed a group called Citizens Opposed to RealtiCorp Annexation.

Rodger and Renee McPheeters claimed residency within the annexation area, saying they had moved into the strip mall shopping center they own on U.S. 19. Any annexation would require a referendum because they were residents in the proposed annexation area.

The City Council eventually voted 4-1, with Kirk casting the lone nay vote, to annex the land. The county and the business owners group filed lawsuits challenging the annexation.

After negotiations broke down, the sides ended up in court, and after several judges recused themselves, the case ended up before Weinberg. Last month, they met for oral arguments in the Citrus County Courthouse in Inverness.

In his order, Weinberg agreed with the opponents that the council drew the annexation lines and wrote the annexation ordinance in such a way to exclude the McPheeterses and therefore avoid a referendum.

After the public hearing on the annexation, he wrote, the council declared Rodger McPheeters "to have his actual residence at a large home outside of the annexed area and to disregard the claim of residence to avoid a possible referendum."

The attorneys representing the McPheeterses argued that the city should have given the McPheeters notice and an opportunity to defend their residency status. The judge wrote that the council should have given notice, but "the record is devoid of such action."

Weinberg also wrote that, under case law, the annexation must fail because a large portion of the annexed areas is "currently undeveloped . . . and unimproved" - a reference to the RealtiCorp property.

"It possesses none of the characteristics of developed or improved property and in its present condition, receives no benefit from the providing of municipal services," he wrote, referring to some of the state requirements for an annexation.

Weinberg also found that the city's urban services report, which is supposed to detail how the city would plan to provide fire, police, water and sewer services to the annexed area, was inadequate.

During oral arguments, La Croix said both then-City Manager Susan Boyer and independent planners had testified that the city did indeed have a plan to provide these services.

The judge wrote, "Present ability is the requirement and not prospective ability."

Weinberg also wrote that the city's annexation did not meet state requirements because it was not compact and that it created enclaves or pockets.

Specifically, Weinberg wrote that the city's effort to cut out five properties to "avoid a possible referendum" from the annexation map "clearly creates pockets of land in and around the annexed areas."

As the county and the business group await the city's decision, there are plenty of questions left unanswered. They might require some litigation.

First, a plat review committee convened by Deaton, La Croix, and other city staff last week approved a request from RealtiCorp to subdivide about 124 acres of its land in the annexed areas into nine lots.

Assistant County Attorney Michele Lieberman said approval is void and that RealtiCorp would have to make that request to the county if the judge's order stands.

Second, the city collected $140,000 in taxes from the property owners in the annexed areas and added it to the city budget last fall.

Carl Bertoch, who represents the Citizens Opposed to RealtiCorp Annexation, said the city should do the honorable and fair thing and return the money to the property owners.

If they don't, he said, "I'd hate to have to go to court and embarrass the city further."

Raghuram Vadarevu can be reached at rvadarevu@sptimes.com or 352 564-3627.

[Last modified June 17, 2005, 00:34:18]