Appeals court says Tontitown didn't provide services to area annexed by Springdale

NWA Democrat-Gazette/ANTHONY REYES 
The Italian Immigrant statue and front entrance to the Tontitown city offices and police department.
NWA Democrat-Gazette/ANTHONY REYES The Italian Immigrant statue and front entrance to the Tontitown city offices and police department.

FAYETTEVILLE -- A judge properly dismissed a bank from an annexation lawsuit between Tontitown and Springdale, but Springdale and a developer who bought property after the fact shouldn't have been dismissed, the Arkansas Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

Justices found Tontitown didn't properly serve First Security Bank with the lawsuit, and Washington County Circuit Judge Doug Martin's dismissal of the bank as a defendant was appropriate.

[EMAIL UPDATES: Get free breaking news updates and daily newsletters with top headlines delivered to your inbox]

Justices also ruled Springdale and Hillcrest Holdings, which bought the property from the bank after the annexation was requested, shouldn't have been dismissed from the lawsuit just because the bank was dismissed.

Justices ordered that portion of the case sent back to Martin.

They didn't rule on whether the annexation complies with state law.

In a second case involving the annexation, justices affirmed a ruling by Martin that Tontitown failed to take substantial steps to provide municipal services to the property when it was owned by First Security Bank.

The bank owned more than 38 acres in Tontitown bordering Springdale on the east and Henri Di Tonti Boulevard on the north. The bank sought to de-annex from Tontitown and annex into Springdale. The bank argued Tontitown failed to provide adequate fire and police protection, ambulance service, water and sewer and a public road to access the property.

Tontitown responded it made all the requested services available.

The bank said it was having trouble selling the land because of Tontitown's inadequate services and Springdale was willing to annex the property and provide the services. The bank also argued Tontitown failed to take any steps within 180 days to provide the services as required by law.

Martin ruled for the bank and against Tontitown at a bench trial in September 2015. Springdale and Hillcrest weren't parties to the second lawsuit.

"Tontitown contends that it complied with its obligations under the statute because the services were already available to the property. We disagree," the Appeals Court opinion said. "The evidence established that while water and sewer services had been provided to the improved portion of the commercially zoned property, they had not been provided to the rest of the property."

Tontitown earlier this month again sued Springdale, this time for the return of the annexed property, saying Springdale hasn't provided municipal services or built a road to the property since the annexation. According to the new lawsuit, Springdale committed to provide services and had 180 days to take substantial steps to provide those services, but didn't.

The lawsuit contends under state law Springdale had a year to make the services available or the annexation is void and the property has to be returned to Tontitown.

Springdale City Attorney Ernest Cate said the clock for Springdale to provide services to the property wouldn't start until Tontitown's two appeals regarding the property and annexation issues were resolved.

NW News on 05/25/2017

Upcoming Events