ILNews

Porter County can't leave RDA

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A northwestern Indiana county can’t withdraw from a regional development authority created by lawmakers to facilitate economic development, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Wednesday.

The  Porter County Council sought declaratory judgment that it has the ability to withdraw from Northwest Indiana Regional Development Authority. The RDA, created by the General Assembly in 2005, is funded by mandatory payments from Porter and Lake counties, and the cities of Gary, East Chicago and Hammond. The council voted to withdraw from the RDA in April 2009; in response the Legislature passed two amendments in June 2009 stating that if Porter County ends its membership in the RDA, municipalities in the county could join and thereby require the county officials to continue to pay county economic development tax revenues to the RDA.

The trial court granted RDA’s motion for summary judgment and denied the council’s motion for summary judgment, finding the relevant statutes don’t contain an express or implied right to withdraw. It also vacated a partial settlement agreement between the council and the county auditor and treasurer in which they had been depositing the tax revenues into an escrow account instead of paying the RDA. The court ordered the auditor and treasurer to make all future payments to the RDA as required by statute.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in County Council of Porter County v. Northwest Indiana Regional Dev. Authority, et al., No. 37A04-1004-CT-291, holding Porter County can’t withdraw from the RDA. It pointed to the fact when the statute was first created, it contained specific instructions that only applied to Porter County. Porter County was automatically made a member of the RDA when the legislation was enacted, wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander. Even though the legislation creating the RDA is silent about participating counties’ ability to withdraw from the RDA, the judges found that the General Assembly had the ability to write the legislation to include a withdrawal provision, but did not.

“… we conclude the amendments, which it should be noted were passed by a different legislative body, i.e., the 116th Indiana General Assembly, were legislative responses to Porter County’s attempt to withdraw from the RDA, or more specifically, to Porter County’s attempt to escape its financial obligations under the RDA Act,” wrote the judge.

The judges also held that the council waived its argument that if the original legislation establishing the RDA Act is construed so as to forbid the county’s withdrawal, it is unconstitutional special legislation. The council didn’t present that claim to the trial court; instead, it challenged the constitutionality of the provisions that required the county to pay RDA fees regardless of whether Porter County withdrew its membership.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Or does the study merely wish they fade away? “It just hasn’t risen substantially in decades,” Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law told Law360. “What we should be looking for is progress, and that’s not what we’re seeing.” PROGRESS = less white males in leadership. Thus the heading and honest questions here ....

  2. One need not wonder why we are importing sex slaves into North America. Perhaps these hapless victims of human trafficking were being imported for a book of play with the Royal Order of Jesters? https://medium.com/@HeapingHelping/who-are-the-royal-order-of-jesters-55ffe6f6acea Indianapolis hosts these major pervs in a big way .... https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Royal-Order-of-Jesters-National-Office/163360597025389 I wonder what affect they exert on Hoosier politics? And its judiciary? A very interesting program on their history and preferences here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtgBdUtw26c

  3. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

  4. I was incarcerated at that time for driving while suspended I have no felonies...i was placed on P block I remember several girls and myself asking about voting that day..and wasn't given a answer or means of voting..we were told after the election who won that was it.

  5. The number one way to reduce suffering would be to ban the breeding of fighting dogs. Fighting dogs maim and kill victim dogs Fighting dogs are the most essential piece of dog fighting Dog fighting will continue as long as fighting dogs are struggling to reach each other and maul another fih.longaphernalia

ADVERTISEMENT