ILNews

Newburgh ordinance allows it to block town from providing sewer service

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals Monday decided that the town of Newburgh was statutorily authorized to pass an ordinance prohibiting others from providing new sewer services to customers within four miles of its corporate boundaries.

The town of Chandler sued Newburgh in Warrick Superior Court in April 2012, trying to get the judge to say Newburgh’s ordinance couldn’t prohibit Chandler from providing new sewer services in an overlapping area. For years the two towns have been providing sewer services within the four-mile rings outside their boundaries, which somewhat overlap. In 2007, Newburgh, pursuant to I.C. 36-9-2-16, -17 and -18, passed the ordinance that gave it an exclusive license to furnish sewer service in the regulated territory.

A developer wanted to build in the regulated territory and got estimates from Newburgh and Chandler on sewer services for the subdivision. The developer chose Chandler because Newburgh’s estimate was much higher. Newburgh then sued the developer for violating its ordinance.

Chandler passed a similar ordinance six weeks after Newburgh. The trial court denied summary judgment for either town.

In Town of Newburgh v. Town of Chandler, 87A01-1305-CT-203, the appellate judges ruled in favor of Newburgh, pointing out that it was the first to pass the ordinance. Courts have long used a first-in-time rule, in the absence of other legislative direction, to resolve disputes when two municipalities possess concurrent and complete jurisdiction of a subject matter.

The statutes in question give municipalities several powers, including the ability to prohibit the furnishing of sewer services within four miles of their boundaries. In order to do so, the municipality must pass an ordinance, which Newburgh did in April 2007.

Chandler put forth several arguments as to why it should prevail, but the appellate court relied on the first-in-time rule.

Senior Judge Randall Shepard noted that Chandler and two amici curiae, the Warrick County Commissioners and the City of Boonville, may have a valid argument that Newburgh’s ordinance will chill economic development. The parties claim Newburgh only enforces the ordinance when significant sewer fees are expected, making developers hesitant to invest in projects in Newburgh’s extraterritorial areas because they worry they will be sued if they choose a cheaper sewer provider.

“Resolution of disputes like the one before us by a commission in the executive branch could likely produce more effective and efficient results. The creation of such mechanisms, however, is in the domain of the legislature and not the courts,” he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT